Reporting snapshot · 22 October 2026. The court has summoned the provincial officials but has not ruled on the legality of the continued detention. The Punjab government's account, the jail records and the exact legal basis for holding the three women had not been published when this article was prepared.
What happened
The Lahore High Court on 22 October summoned Punjab’s home secretary and the superintendent of Kot Lakhpat jail to appear in person on 28 October, after Imran Khan’s three sisters remained in custody beyond the end of their 30-day preventive-detention orders.
Justice Abher Gul Khan was hearing a petition filed a day earlier by Shahrez Khan, Aleema Khan’s son, seeking the production and release of his mother, Aleema Khan, and her sisters Uzma Khan and Noreen Niazi, Dawn reported. The court directed the two officials to appear with reports explaining why the women were still being held, Geo News reported. The hearing was adjourned until 28 October.
The petition says the 30-day orders issued by the Lahore deputy commissioner expired on 19 and 20 October, but the sisters remain at Kot Lakhpat jail. Aleema was detained on 20 September and Uzma and Noreen a day later, under Section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, ahead of PTI’s planned 27 September march towards Islamabad, The Express Tribune reported.
At the hearing, the judge asked why the deputy commissioner had not been named as a respondent. The petitioners’ counsel, Rana Mudassar Umar, said the deputy commissioner had not been impleaded because the detention notification issued by his office had expired. Uzma’s husband, Ahed Khan, then asked the court to summon the deputy commissioner as well. The judge observed that the official could not be summoned because he was not a party to the petition, Dawn and The Express Tribune reported.
Why the expiry matters
The case turns on a narrow question with wider consequences: what happens when a preventive-detention order runs out but the detainee is not released?
The petition argues that the continued custody has no legal basis, that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law, and that the orders violate Article 10 of the Constitution and the safeguards in Section 3 of the MPO. It asks the court to declare the orders void, direct the jail superintendent to produce the three women and set them at liberty, according to Dawn and The Express Tribune.
The MPO is a colonial-era preventive-detention law. It allows the authorities to hold a person without a criminal trial while giving the detainee the right to make a representation to the provincial government. The September orders cited police reports alleging that the women’s activities posed a threat to public safety and public order; the family and PTI say the detentions are political, and the authorities deny that. KhabarWire reported the background to Aleema Khan’s detention when the first order was issued.
At an earlier hearing in September, the court declined to suspend the orders against Uzma and Noreen and sought responses from the authorities. On 22 October it again stopped short of ordering release. By summoning the home secretary and the jail superintendent, it has put the provincial administration on notice to explain the legal basis for custody that, according to the petition, has already expired.
The wider standoff
The sisters were detained as PTI prepared its march to Islamabad, part of a wider crackdown that preceded the 11 October imposition of emergency rule and governor’s rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. KhabarWire also reported the detention of Uzma and Noreen the day after Aleema was taken into custody, and the emergency and governor’s rule that followed.
PTI says the detentions are intended to punish the family for seeking Imran Khan’s release. The authorities say the measures are necessary to maintain public order and deny that they are targeting the party. The police and intelligence reports behind the September orders have not been published in full, and the government’s reply to the fresh petition had not been made public when this article was prepared.
The case is also a test of how the courts handle preventive detention during the broader political standoff. On the same day, the Lahore High Court issued notices to the foreign secretary in a separate contempt case concerning two PTI-linked Pakistanis detained in the United Arab Emirates, Dawn reported. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the Peshawar High Court is hearing petitions against the emergency measures. The sisters’ case is narrower, but it raises a similar question: whether the executive will produce a lawful basis for detention when a court asks for one.
What is still uncertain
The immediate question is what happens on 28 October. The court could order the sisters’ release, direct the provincial government to issue fresh orders, or ask for more information. The reports of the 22 October hearing did not include a response from the provincial government, and no reply had been published when this article was prepared.
The dates need care. Aleema’s 30-day order ran from 20 September, so it expired on 19 October. Uzma’s and Noreen’s orders ran from 21 September and expired on 20 October, according to the petition and the reports. The petition says all three remain in jail; the reports did not include a statement from the jail superintendent on the legal authority for holding them.
The government’s account is not yet on the record. Until the home secretary and the jail superintendent file their reports, the claim that the detention has simply continued without a valid order is contested. The court’s summons is a step towards resolving that, not a ruling that the detention is unlawful.
The wider political context is also unresolved. PTI has demanded the release of political prisoners and a reversal of the K-P emergency as conditions for talks; the government has defended the emergency measures. Whether the sisters’ case becomes a bargaining chip or a standalone legal ruling will depend on the 28 October hearing and on whether the provincial government produces a fresh order or a convincing explanation for the custody that has already lasted beyond the original orders.
