The Sindh High Court (SHC) has rejected a petition seeking the formation of a joint investigation team (JIT) to investigate the murder of Mir Raza Ali, ruling that the decision to establish such a team falls within the government’s authority.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Adnanul Karim and Justice Muhammad Jaffer Raza announced the decision on Wednesday after reserving its verdict earlier this week.
Ali’s family had approached the SHC after expressing dissatisfaction with the investigation and alleging that efforts were being made to suppress key facts surrounding the case. The family had challenged the provincial government’s decision to establish a judicial commission and requested that a JIT be constituted instead.
In its detailed ruling, the court said it could not order the government to establish a JIT and declined to intervene in or oversee the criminal investigation currently underway.
The judgment noted that the first information report (FIR), as it stood when the decision was issued, did not include any offence under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997.
Justice Raza held that even if offences under the ATA had been included in the FIR, the authority to constitute a JIT under the relevant law would still rest with the government.
The petitioners had argued that Article 199 gave the high court the power to oversee the investigation to ensure it remained impartial, effective and transparent. The bench rejected this argument, referring to an earlier Supreme Court ruling.
The judgment cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Sughran Bibi vs the State, which cautioned against courts taking on the role of monitoring or supervising criminal investigations.
The SHC observed that it was a settled legal principle that the court should neither interfere with an ongoing investigation nor assume the functions of an investigating officer.
However, the bench clarified that the petitioners could pursue any legal remedies available to them if they believed the investigation was not being conducted fairly, impartially, efficiently and transparently.
The court also chose not to address the conflicting factual claims made by the parties, explaining that putting such allegations on record at this stage could potentially influence the investigation.
Regarding the judicial commission, Justice Raza noted that the petitioner had not strongly opposed the establishment of the single-member commission and had, in fact, expressed confidence in it while seeking other relief.
The court also made clear that it would not obstruct or comment on the proceedings before the commission, which will continue independently.
