LHC disposes of petition seeking release of Imran's sisters after govt extends detention

Dawn · 26/10/2026، 12:03:53 PM

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday disposed of a petition seeking the release of PTI founder Imran Khan’s three sisters after the Punjab government informed the court that their preventive detention had been extended for another 30 days. An assistant advocate general of Punjab told Justice Abher Gul Khan, who has been holding hearings on the petition, that the government had approved a further 30-day detention of Aleema Khan, Dr Uzma Khan and Noreen Niazi on the recommendation of the Lahore deputy commissioner. The law officer also submitted a report on behalf of the home secretary and said the detention period had been extended on Oct 7. Imran’s sisters — Aleema, Noreen and Uzma — were detained by authorities in September, under the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, as the PTI geared up for a planned protest march towards Islamabad. Their detention was ordered for 30 days and expired on Oct 19 for Aleema and Oct 20 for Uzma and Noreen, the petitioner’s counsel had said at the previous hearing. Today, counsel Rana Mudassar Umar requested the court to order the recovery of the three women and their production before the court. However, Justice Khan observed that while the deputy commissioner had issued the detention notifications, but the petitioner had not made the official a respondent in the petition. The judge held that the court could not issue an order beyond the scope of the petition. The judge disposed of the petition in light of the home secretary’s report. Aleema’s son, Shahrez, had filed the petition alleging that the three sisters remained confined at Kot Lakhpat jail despite the end of their initial 30-day detention orders on Oct 19 for Aleema and 20 for Noreen and Uzma. The petition stated that the women were taken into custody in September under Section 3 of the MPO, 1960. Aleema was detained on Sept 20, while Uzma and Noreen were detained a day later. The petitioner argued that the continuous detention beyond the notified