Muhammad Khan Marwat VS District Magistrate Islamabad ICT etc

ORDER SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

WRIT PETITION No. 3746 of 2026

Muhammad Khan Marwat Vs.

Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad and Others.

Petitioner by : Mr. Ehtasham Aslam Khan Advocate.

Respondents by : Mr. Usman Rasool Ghuman, Assistant Attorney General.

M/s Syed Ameer Ali, Ch. Zubair Jatria, Ch. Zaheer Ahmed, State Counsel.

Date of Hearing : 19-8-2026.

SHAHRUKH ARJUMAND, J.- The petitioner [Muhammad Khan Marwat] has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, vested under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (“Constitution”) seeking following prayers:

a) Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 (District Magistrate, Islamabad Capital Territory) to decide the Petitioner's pending application dated 21.04.2026 (as supplemented on 29.04.2026) forthwith, and in any event within a period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

b) direct Respondent No.2 to implement, in letter and spirit, the order dated 08.04.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattoki, pursuant to the directions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, dated 11.02.2026, by issuing the necessary orders for exhumation and fresh medico-legal examination of the deceased through an independent Medical Board;

c) grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit, equitable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

W.P. No.3746/2026.

2.Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner is the father of Furqan Muhammad Khan (“the deceased”), an Ex-Assistant Commissioner, Pattoki, PAS-51 CTP, who was found dead at Head Balloki Rest House on 31.08.2025 in circumstances which, according to the petitioner, raised serious concerns regarding the actual cause and manner of his death. It is the petitioner’s case that, at the time of the initial medical examination, the family had requested that the post-mortem examination be conducted at Tehsil Headquarters Hospital, Pattoki, owing to their apprehensions regarding the impartiality of the examination; however, the request was not acceded to and the post-mortem examination was conducted at the hospital to which objection had been raised. The petitioner further asserts that the final post-mortem report was withheld for approximately twenty-three days on the ground that the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (“PFSA”) was awaited and that, despite the presence of certain signs which, according to him, were suggestive of asphyxia and other suspicious features, the concerned Medical Officer merely recorded that there was “no evidence of unnatural death” without specifying any definite cause of death. Being dissatisfied with the manner in which the medical examination and investigation had proceeded, the petitioner and other members of the deceased’s family approached the concerned authorities on various occasions, seeking a fair and independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pattoki, in which, according to the petitioner, neither he nor the brothers of the deceased, being his legal heirs, were impleaded or afforded an opportunity of hearing. The said proceedings were ultimately closed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.11.2025 without directing any further investigation or re-examination of the body of the deceased. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision/appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, who, vide judgment dated 11.02.2026, allowed the same, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed reopening of the matter and conduct of a fresh medical examination of the deceased for the purpose of ascertaining the actual cause of death. Pursuant thereto, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattoki, vide order dated 08.04.2026, observed that, as the deceased had been buried within the territorial

W.P. No.3746/2026.

jurisdiction of Islamabad, the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the place of burial was competent to undertake the process of exhumation and fresh post-mortem examination, and accordingly directed the concerned Station House Officer and the petitioner to approach the competent authority at Islamabad and submit compliance before the Court. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner approached the District Magistrate, Islamabad, on 21.04.2026, seeking permission for exhumation of the body of the deceased and conduct of a fresh post-mortem examination, followed by a supplementary application dated 29.04.2026. It is further the petitioner’s case that, instead of deciding the application, the District Magistrate sought comments from various departments, including the District Public Prosecutor, ICT, District Health Officer, Assistant Commissioner (Industrial Area) and PIMS Hospital, and that despite repeated personal approaches, telephonic requests and written reminders dated 30.06.2026 and 16.07.2026, the application remained undecided. Consequently, alleging that the continued delay was prejudicial to the possibility of ascertaining the true cause of death through scientific examination of the remains, the petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court seeking appropriate directions in respect of his pending application for exhumation and fresh post-mortem examination.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, submitted that the Additional District Magistrate, Islamabad, had failed to discharge the statutory and judicially mandated duty vested in the office despite the clear and unambiguous directions contained in the judgment dated 11.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, and the subsequent order dated 08.04.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattoki. He contended that the said judicial orders had neither been challenged nor set aside by any competent forum and, therefore, continued to hold the field and were binding upon the executive authorities, who could neither sit in appeal over them nor, through administrative inaction or prolonged correspondence, frustrate their implementation. Learned counsel further argued that the Additional District Magistrate possessed the requisite statutory authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for exhumation and fresh medico-legal examination, but had failed to exercise the

W.P. No.3746/2026.

jurisdiction vested in him by law and, instead of making a decision on the application, had subjected the matter to an indefinite process of obtaining comments from various departments, thereby creating administrative impediments where, according to learned counsel, none existed in law. It was submitted that such non- exercise of jurisdiction and unexplained delay were amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. It was further contended that, despite repeated approaches, including written reminders dated 30.06.2026 and 16.07.2026, the competent executive authority had neither passed a speaking order nor disclosed any lawful impediment to the implementation of the judicial directions, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner and potentially frustrating the process of criminal justice. According to learned counsel, such prolonged inaction was arbitrary and unreasonable, offended the constitutional guarantee under Article 4 that a person be dealt with in accordance with law, and was inconsistent with the requirements of Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution, which, in the circumstances of a suspicious death, demanded an effective and meaningful process directed towards ascertainment of the truth.

4.Conversely, learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the respondents controverted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the instant petition was premature, misconceived and not maintainable in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, as no refusal, adverse order or final determination by the competent authority had been demonstrated so as to warrant interference by this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. He contended that the orders dated 11.02.2026 and 08.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattoki, respectively, did not themselves constitute an executable direction to the District Magistrate, Islamabad, to order exhumation as a matter of course, nor did they dispense with the statutory requirements, procedural safeguards and satisfaction of the competent authority under the law governing exhumation and medico-legal examination. According to learned Law Officer, the order dated 08.04.2026 merely required the petitioner to approach the competent authority at Islamabad, where the body had been buried, and therefore the jurisdiction of the Islamabad administration had to be

W.P. No.3746/2026.

exercised independently upon examination of the relevant record, medical material, police proceedings and reports of the concerned departments. He maintained that the Additional District Magistrate had not refused to exercise jurisdiction or deliberately disobeyed any judicial direction; rather, the matter was actively under consideration and comments had been sought from the District Public Prosecutor, District Health Officer, Assistant Commissioner (Industrial Area), PIMS Hospital and other relevant authorities in order to ascertain the legal, medical, territorial and practical aspects involved before taking a decision of such sensitive nature. He emphasized that the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court could, at most, be invoked to ensure consideration and decision of a pending application in accordance with law, but could not ordinarily be employed to compel the competent authority to reach a particular conclusion or to substitute the Court’s satisfaction for that of the authority vested with jurisdiction. He further contended that the reliance placed by the petitioner upon Articles 4, 9 and 10A of the Constitution was misplaced, as none of these provisions created an absolute or indefeasible right to exhumation or a second post-mortem examination, and the petitioner had failed to establish any infringement of a fundamental right arising merely from the fact that his application was still under consideration. It was accordingly submitted that, in the absence of any final adverse decision, demonstrated mala fide, deliberate defiance of a judicial order or a jurisdictional defect, the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court ought not to be invoked for directing the respondents to grant the substantive relief sought; rather, the competent authority should be permitted to conclude the consultative process and decide the petitioner’s application strictly in accordance with law.

5.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Law Officers appearing on behalf of the respondents at considerable length and have examined the record and the material available on file with their able assistance.

6.The question that now falls for determination is whether, in the circumstances of the present case, the law permits disinterment of the deceased and a fresh medico- legal examination notwithstanding the fact that an earlier post-mortem examination had already been conducted. The answer must be found primarily in Section 176(2), read with Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (“Cr.P.C.”). The

W.P. No.3746/2026.

statutory scheme does not treat the first post-mortem examination as an irreversible or conclusive bar against a subsequent examination of the body. On the contrary, Section 176(2) expressly contemplates a situation in which the dead body has already been interred and nevertheless authorizes the Magistrate, where he considers it expedient to make an examination of such body in order to discover the cause of death to cause the body to be disinterred and examined. The applicable Sections of Cr.P.C. read as under:

Section 174 (3): When there is any doubt regarding the cause of death, or when for any other reason the police officer considers it expedient so to do, he shall, subject to such rules as the [Provincial Government] may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the [Provincial Government], if the state of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless.

176.Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death. (1) When any person dies while in the custody of the police, the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests shall, and in any other case mentioned in section 174, clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1), any Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the cause of death either instead of. does so, he shall have all the powers in conducting it which he would or in addition to, the investigation held by the police-officer, and if he have in holding an inquiry into an offence. The Magistrate holding such an inquiry shall record the evidence taken by him in connection therewith in any of the manners hereinafter prescribed according to the circumstances of the case.

Power to disinter corpses. (2) Whenever such Magistrate considers it expedient to make an examination of the dead body of any person who has been already interred, in order to discover the cause of his death, the Magistrate may, cause the body to be disinterred and examined”.

7.The relevant statutory provisions assume significance in this context. Section 174(3), Cr.P.C. requires that, where there is any doubt regarding the cause of death, or where for any other reason the police officer considers it expedient so to do, the body shall, subject to the prescribed rules and circumstances permitting, be forwarded for medical examination with a view to determining the cause of death.

W.P. No.3746/2026.

Section 176(2), Cr.P.C. carries this statutory concern further by expressly providing that, where the Magistrate considers it expedient to examine the dead body of a person who has already been interred “in order to discover the cause of his death,” he may cause the body to be disinterred and examined. The two provisions, read harmoniously, manifest a legislative policy that the determination of the true cause of death is a matter of sufficient public and judicial importance to justify medical examination even after burial, where the statutory conditions are satisfied. The power under Section 176(2) must be exercised upon due application of mind, having regard to the material available before the Magistrate, the circumstances in which the death occurred, the adequacy or otherwise of the earlier medical examination, and whether further examination can reasonably be expected to assist in resolving the uncertainty concerning the cause of death. Thus, the legal position emerging from Section 176(2) is one of judicially controlled discretion directed towards ascertainment of truth: where a genuine question concerning the cause of death remains unresolved and further examination is reasonably capable of assisting in its determination, the mere fact that the body has already been buried or that an earlier post-mortem examination has been conducted does not, by itself, extinguish the statutory power to order disinterment and fresh examination.

8.The foregoing legal position is further reinforced and reaffirmed by the authoritative pronouncements of the superior Courts of Pakistan, which have consistently recognized that, where the circumstances of a death give rise to a legitimate need for further medical inquiry, neither the prior burial of the deceased nor the passage of time, by itself, constitutes an absolute impediment to disinterment and subsequent medico-legal examination. The superior judiciary has approached the power of exhumation as an investigative mechanism to be exercised in furtherance of the discovery of truth and the administration of justice, subject always to the statutory requirement of expediency and the circumstances of each individual case. The underlying object of the jurisdiction is not to multiply medical examinations but to remove a genuine ambiguity concerning the cause or manner of death where such ambiguity bears upon the administration of justice. In Rana Shahbaz Ahmed v. Sessions Judge and another reported as 2018 MLD 460, the

W.P. No.3746/2026.

Lahore High Court, while considering a challenge to an order of disinterment, held that there is no absolute bar against exhumation merely on account of lapse of time or decomposition and observed, in substance, that where the controversy relates to an injury which may still be ascertainable from the remains, an autopsy may be undertaken notwithstanding the passage of time. The Court further held: - “10. The instant petition was mainly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.4 and 5 with twofold submissions. Firstly, this is too late in the day to pass an order for the disinterment on account of the process of decomposition and secondly the maintainability of this petition in reference to the provision of section 176, Cr.P.C. by canvassing that the provision relates only to the custodial death of a person.

As regards the first objection, in my considered view, this is never too late to hold an autopsy or to pass an order for disinterment for the purposes of re-examination of a corpse. More so, when the controversy between the parties lies at the injury on the occipital bone of the deceased, the same can be discovered even after a decade. Even otherwise, medical jurisprudence does not provide any time limit for the exhumation of a dead body. I deem it appropriate to mention here that Rule-5 of Chapter-III given by Dr. S. Siddiq Husain in his book (mentioned supra) it is mentioned as under:- "It is never too late to make an autopsy, no matter, how far decomposition is advanced, as information may be had from teeth, hair, injuries to bones, as fractures, bullet wounds, etc. and shots may be recovered from inside the body."

In support of my above-mentioned view, I am further enlightened from the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the country mentioned in the case of Faryad Ali v. The State (2008 SCMR 1086) wherein it was observed as under:--

"Coming to the contention of the learned Deputy Prosecutor General that the re-examination of the dead body conducted by the Special Medical Board after about 10 months of the burial, suffice it to answer that the medical jurisprudence has not provided any time limit for exhumation/disinterment of the dead body in India and England while in France the period is limited to 10 years and 30 years in Germany. Reference is made to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Chapter IV Page 90)."

As regards second objection of the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.4 and 5 which pertains to the maintainability of this petition, I consider it necessary to reproduce sections 174 and 176 Cr.P.C. which are as under:--

W.P. No.3746/2026.

174.Police to inquire on suicide, etc.---(1) The officer incharge of a police-station or some other police-officer specially empowered by the Provincial Government in that behalf, on receiving information that a person:

(a)has committed suicide, or

(b)has been killed by another, or by an animal, or by machinery, or by an accident, or

(c)has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence.

shall immediately give intimation to the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the Provincial Government, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death describing such wounds fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appear to have been inflicted.

(2)The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forthwith forward to the [concerned] Magistrate.

(3)When there is any doubt regarding the cause of death, or when for any other reason the police officer considers it expedient so to do, he shall, subject to such rules as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the Provincial Government, if the state of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless."

176.Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death.---(1) When any dies while in the custody of the police, the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests shall, and, in any other case mentioned in section 174, clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1), any Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the cause of death either instead of, or in addition to, the investigation held by the police-officer, and if he does so, he shall have all the powers in conducting it which he would have in holding an inquiry into an offence. The Magistrate holding such an inquiry shall record the evidence taken by him in connection therewith in any of the manners hereinafter prescribed according to the circumstances of the case.

W.P. No.3746/2026.

(2). Power to disinter corpses.---Whenever such Magistrate considers it expedient to make an examination of the dead body of any person who has been already interned, in order to discover the cause of his death, the Magistrate may cause the body to be disinterred and examined.

From the language and moreso from the following sentence used in section 176(1) of Cr.P.C. "in any other case mentioned in section 174(a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1)" it follows that the provision of section 176, Cr.P.C., is not to be read in isolation from the provision of section 174(1), Cr.P.C. and instead is to be considered in conjunction with it. Moreover, from the plain reading of section 176(2), Cr.P.C. it evinces that the order of medical examination through disinterment can be passed by the Magistrate if he considers it expedient to do so. The question of expediency relates to the facts and circumstances of the case and is inflexible in nature. Likewise, I have not been able to come across any legal provision, which places embargo for a medical re-examination through disinterment moreso, when it is aimed at removing any ambiguity and further to provide a correct data to the court, in order to arrive at the just conclusion. I consider it equally important to mention here that even in the Police Rules, 1934, Chapter-XXV, Rule 34, the rules relating to disinterment of the bodies are enumerated, the perusal of which proves that the argument of learned counsel for the respondents regarding the bar of disinterment is misconceived. For ready reference, Rule 25.34 of Police Rules, 1934 is being reproduced below:-- 25.34. Disinterment of bodies: The following rules relate to the disinterment of bodies:--

(1)An officer in charge of a police station and any superior police officer, lawfully making an investigation into the unnatural or sudden death of any person shall, on learning that the body of the deceased person has been formally buried, record in writing the information which has reached him and the grounds on which he considers it necessary that the body should be disinterred.

(2)He shall forward the information so recorded to the nearest magistrate empowered to hold requests and ask for an order under Section 176 (2), Code of Criminal Procedure, and in the meantime shall guard the grave.

(3)On receipt of such order, if the magistrate himself does not disinterment, such police officer shall, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, cause the body to be disinterred. Such police officer shall then comply with the provision of Section 174, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(4)Police officers shall invariably examine witnesses to prove

W.P. No.3746/2026.

the identity of disinterred bodies before commencing their investigation.

(5)When a body has lain in the grave for a period exceeding three weeks no disinterment shall be made by any police officer until the opinion of the District Health Officer has been obtained, and then only with the occurrence of the District Magistrate.”

9.Indeed, exhumation and subsequent medical examination are not undertaken to declare any person guilty or to establish, by themselves, that a crime has been committed. Their purpose is much narrower and more fundamental: to discover the truth about the death. Where the circumstances of death remain unexplained, or where the first medical examination has left an important question unanswered, a further examination may provide medical or scientific evidence which can assist the investigating agency and the Court in determining what actually happened. At the same time, exhumation cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or merely upon an unsupported allegation, because the body of a deceased person continues to command dignity and respect even after burial. The Magistrate, therefore, is required to carefully balance these considerations by examining the reasons for the doubt, the adequacy of the earlier post-mortem examination, the nature of the material already available, and the likelihood that a further examination may yield useful evidence. The essential question is whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, disturbing the burial and conducting another medical examination is reasonably necessary or expedient for discovering the true cause of death. The object is ultimately neither to favor the complainant nor to implicate any particular person, but to ensure that where a death remains genuinely unexplained or suspicious; the truth is ascertained through a lawful, impartial and scientifically informed process, while preserving, to the fullest extent possible, the dignity and sanctity of the deceased.

10.The same principle finds further elucidation in Zafar Ali v. Mst. Muradan and another reported as 2017 P.Cr.L.J. 1341, wherein the learned Court, while examining the scope of Section 176(2), Cr.P.C., held that the Magistrate possesses ample jurisdiction to order disinterment of an already interred body for the purpose

W.P. No.3746/2026.

of ascertaining the actual cause of death and that the criminal law prescribes no fixed limitation for moving an application for exhumation. At the same time, the Court emphasized that such jurisdiction is to be exercised prudently and judicially: the Magistrate must examine the information or application placed before him, and may decline the request where the material does not warrant further examination or where the cause of death has already been satisfactorily ascertained. The relevant para from the 2017 P.Cr.L.J. 1341 have been reproduced as under: -

“13. Under section 176(2), Cr.P.C., Magistrate has ample powers to disinter anybody to ascertain the actual cause of death of deceased person who has already been interred. There is no limitation provided in criminal law for moving any application for exhumation of grave and disinterment of dead body, but Magistrate should examine the information or application for exhumation of dead body prudently, and if he is not satisfied with the averments of such application or is of the opinion that cause of death has already been ascertained properly, he may decline said application straightaway. It is well settled that for exhumation of the grave and disinterment of dead body mere any suspicion is sufficient to ascertain the actual cause of death of the deceased to exonerate any slightest doubt in the minds of relatives of the deceased which is their legal right to know the real facts and cause of death of the deceased, but such application should be examined judiciously and due respect of the deceased and his body should be maintained in view of the injunctions of Islam. In the case of letters patent, In Re: (1989 PCr.LJ 1827), it was observed that cause of death very much obvious in proceedings already conducted by police, thus dead body may not be disinterred after 8 months of occurrence. In the case of Zaffar Iqbal alias Kaka v. Additional Sessions Judge and 3 others (2005 PCr.LJ 736), it was observed that being Muslim, we have to respect a dead body and its disinterment could only be allowed against serious accusation.”

11.There is another important aspect which supports the petitioner's request for a fresh and independent medical examination. Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 provides that the Court may presume that evidence which could be produced but has not been produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the

W.P. No.3746/2026.

person who withholds it. The purpose of this provision is simple: a party who has the best evidence available to it should not be permitted to keep that evidence away from the Court and then seek advantage from its absence. In the present case, the material relating to the first post-mortem examination and the forensic investigation is primarily within the knowledge, custody or control of the official authorities. If the respondents maintain that the first post-mortem examination was complete, satisfactory and sufficient to determine the cause of death, the medical and forensic material on which such conclusion is based would constitute the best evidence to support that position. Yet, where such material does not clearly establish the cause of death, or where the relevant scientific material is not brought forward to satisfactorily resolve the doubt raised by the petitioner, the resulting uncertainty cannot fairly be used as a reason to deny him further examination. At this stage, the Court is not called upon to determine whether the death was homicidal, suicidal, accidental or natural, nor is any adverse conclusion being drawn against any individual. The question is much narrower: whether, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner has shown sufficient reason for seeking an independent and scientifically conducted examination so that the actual cause of death may be determined. The Court is of the view that where the available medical record does not conclusively answer that question, and where the petitioner has consistently raised a specific grievance regarding the adequacy and impartiality of the earlier examination, the benefit of such unresolved uncertainty cannot be allowed to operate against him merely because the relevant material is in the possession of the authorities. Article 129(g), in these circumstances, reinforces the principle that the best available evidence concerning the cause of death should be brought before the competent forum.

12.In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki passed the order for exhumation in the following manner:

“Resultantly, police report u/s 174 Cr.P.C. shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Area Magistrate. He is directed to conduct exhumation of the corpus of the deceased to get conduct second postmortem examination of the body of Furqan Ahmad Khan deceased in the presence of petitioner or

W.P. No.3746/2026.

his any competent representative and then to proceed further strictly in accordance with law.”

13.The circumstances of the present case reveal a matter which cannot be viewed merely as an ordinary administrative dispute. The deceased, an Assistant Commissioner, Pattoki, PAS-51 CTP, died on 31.08.2025 in circumstances which, on the material available on record, have continued to generate questions regarding the actual cause and manner of his death. Almost one year has now elapsed since his death. During this entire period, instead of receiving a clear and satisfactory determination from the concerned authorities, the petitioner, being the father of the deceased, has been compelled to move from one office to another, submit repeated applications and reminders, approach different authorities and seek implementation of judicial directions, merely to ascertain the actual cause of death of his own son. The picture emerging from the record is that of a bereaved father repeatedly knocking at the doors of the State, not for any personal or pecuniary benefit, but only to know the truth concerning the death of his son. His persistence cannot fairly be characterized as an unnecessary insistence; rather, it demonstrates that he has continuously pursued the remedies made available to him by law. A grieving parent cannot reasonably be expected to remain indefinitely helpless and powerless before the machinery of the State while a genuine question concerning the cause of his son's death remains unresolved. The passage of time, in the circumstances of the present case, makes the matter all the more urgent. The deceased died on 31.08.2025 and nearly one year has passed since his burial. It is a matter of common medical knowledge that, after burial, the human body undergoes natural decomposition and that the passage of time may progressively diminish or destroy certain forms of biological and pathological evidence. While decomposition does not necessarily render every form of post-mortem examination futile, it may reduce the availability, quality or reliability of some evidence which could otherwise assist in determining the cause or manner of death. The law, therefore, cannot permit administrative delay to operate to the ultimate prejudice of the very person seeking investigation. The State cannot first allow the matter to remain pending and, after the passage of time has diminished the evidentiary value of the remains, rely upon that very passage of time as a reason for declining further examination. Such an approach would produce

W.P. No.3746/2026.

an anomalous and legally unacceptable result whereby delay on the part of the authorities would itself become the justification for refusing the remedy sought by the petitioner.

14.In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, after examining the matter, directed that the police report under Section 174, Cr.P.C. be treated as pending and specifically directed exhumation of the deceased for a second post-mortem examination. The learned Magistrate 1st Class, Pattoki, thereafter passed a consequential order directing the petitioner and the concerned SHO to approach the competent authority at Islamabad, where the deceased had been buried. These judicial orders have neither been challenged nor set aside, suspended or modified by any competent judicial forum and, therefore, continue to hold the field. Their correctness or otherwise could not be examined or nullified by an executive authority acting administratively. The executive authorities are bound to respect and facilitate the implementation of judicial orders unless and until such orders are lawfully varied, suspended or set aside by a competent Court. An executive officer cannot assume the jurisdiction of an appellate or revisional forum over a judicial order, nor can the effect of such order be neutralized by simply recording an administrative opinion contrary to the judicial direction. The above principle is consistent with the settled position that an executive authority cannot, under the guise of administrative action, defeat or render ineffective a judicial determination which remains operative. In Athar Rahim vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, reported as 2020 PLC (C.S.) 918, the Peshawar High Court emphasized that where a judicial order has attained legal effect, its consequences cannot be avoided through technical or collateral means, and that the administration of justice cannot be permitted to be frustrated by an approach which disregards the substance of the judicial determination. The Court further observed that: -

“Compliance of the Court orders in the letter and spirit is not only the responsibility of general public but the government departments too are required to honour the verdict of the Courts and Tribunals. Sufficient time was given to respondents to conduct de-novo inquiry but, as is evident from the Para No.4 of comments, they have adopted various dilatory tactics to

W.P. No.3746/2026.

delay the implementation of the Judgment of Service Tribunal and failed to comply the same in the letter and spirit.

8.Non-compliance with the orders of the Courts or Tribunals shakes the very foundation of our judicial system and undermines the rule of law, which we are bound to honour and protect. It is indispensable to maintain the faith and confidence of the people of this Country in the judiciary. Whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice or which tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions, the Courts are not supposed to bear such an act. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is a supervisory and extraordinary original jurisdiction. The High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction can discourage an act which adversely effects the majesty of law or dignity of the courts; and this Court can take every measure to protect the administration of justice from being maligned. In the general interest of the community, it is imperative that the authority of Courts should not be imperiled and there should be no unjustifiable interference in the administration of justice. No such act can be permitted which may have the tendency to shake the public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the administration of justice. The government departments are not aloof from the law rather they are comparatively more responsible to follow the dictum of Courts or Tribunals.”

15.In this backdrop, the order dated 13.08.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Islamabad, whereby the request for second post- mortem examination was declined, cannot be sustained to the extent that it effectively defeats or frustrates the effect of the subsisting judicial directions. The learned Additional District Magistrate was required to facilitate the lawful process within the territorial jurisdiction of Islamabad and to exercise whatever jurisdiction the law vested in that office in accordance with the directions of the competent judicial forum; he was not vested with appellate or revisional jurisdiction to pronounce upon the correctness or necessity of a course of action already directed by the competent judicial authority. The distinction is fundamental: an executive authority may regulate the manner of implementation in accordance with law, but it

W.P. No.3746/2026.

cannot sit in appeal over a judicial order or substitute its own opinion for that of the Court which passed it.

16.In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be left remediless merely because the body of his deceased son happens to have been buried within the territorial jurisdiction of Islamabad. The territorial and administrative arrangements between different organs of the State cannot become an obstacle to the administration of justice. Rather, the concerned authorities are under an obligation to coordinate and extend the necessary assistance so that the subsisting judicial directions may be implemented and the question concerning the actual cause of death may, to the extent still medically and scientifically possible, be determined. Where a father has spent almost an entire year moving from one authority to another merely to discover the truth concerning the death of his son, the constitutional promise of a lawful and effective process cannot be reduced to a series of administrative referrals. The State must provide an answer through the mechanism prescribed by law, and it must do so without any further avoidable delay.

17.Admittedly, the corpus of the deceased is buried in H-8 Graveyard, Islamabad, and therefore, the process of disinterment/exhumation and subsequent medico-legal examination necessarily falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Islamabad Capital Territory. In view of the foregoing discussion, the order dated 13.08.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Islamabad Capital Territory, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The constitutional petition is, therefore, ALLOWED with the following directions:

i. The District Magistrate, Islamabad Capital Territory, shall forthwith constitute an independent Medical Board comprising suitably qualified and experienced specialists relevant to the circumstances of the case, including forensic/medico-legal experts and such other medical specialists as may be considered necessary for an effective and scientifically informed examination. As far as practicable, the members of the Medical Board shall have no connection with the

W.P. No.3746/2026.

earlier post-mortem examination so as to ensure independence, impartiality and public confidence in the fresh medico-legal process. ii. The District Magistrate, Islamabad Capital Territory, shall designate a competent Magistrate empowered under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to supervise the entire process of disinterment/exhumation strictly in accordance with Section 176(2), Cr.P.C., the applicable rules and the directions contained in this judgment. The Magistrate shall ensure that the identity of the grave and the deceased is duly established, that the proceedings are properly documented, and that the sanctity and dignity of the deceased are maintained throughout the process.

iii. The District Police Officer, Kasur, shall, in coordination with the District Magistrate, Islamabad Capital Territory, and the designated Magistrate, ensure that the concerned Investigating Officer/police team remains present during the disinterment and subsequent medico-legal proceedings and extends all necessary assistance for the lawful and orderly completion of the process. The police authorities shall also ensure compliance with all requirements relating to identification, preservation, custody and transmission of any material recovered during the examination.

iv. The petitioner, being the father of the deceased, or his duly authorized representative, shall be permitted to remain present during the disinterment proceedings, subject to the directions of the supervising Magistrate and the requirements of medico-legal procedure. His presence, however, shall not interfere with the independent functioning of the Medical Board or the integrity of the examination.

v. The Medical Board shall conduct the fresh medico-legal examination strictly in accordance with law and accepted principles of forensic medicine and shall examine, document and preserve, to the extent medically possible, all relevant findings capable of assisting in the determination of the actual cause and manner of

W.P. No.3746/2026.

death. The Board shall record its observations objectively and independently and shall clearly indicate, where scientifically possible, whether the examination discloses any finding relevant to the cause or manner of death. Any samples or other material considered necessary for further forensic or laboratory examination shall be duly preserved, sealed, documented and transmitted to the competent forensic facility in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

vi. The entire process of disinterment, fresh medico-legal examination and collection/preservation of relevant forensic material shall be initiated and completed expeditiously and, in any event, within ten (10) days from the receipt of this order by the concerned authorities, unless circumstances beyond their control make strict compliance impossible. In such eventuality, the supervising Magistrate shall record the reasons for any unavoidable delay and shall ensure that the proceedings are completed at the earliest possible opportunity. vii. Upon completion of the examination, the supervising Magistrate shall prepare and transmit a detailed report, together with the medico-legal report of the Medical Board and all relevant supporting material, to the learned Magistrate, Pattoki, who shall proceed further in accordance with law. The concerned authorities shall ensure that the entire record of the exhumation and medical examination is properly maintained and that no material collected during the process is lost, altered or otherwise compromised. viii. It is clarified that the constitution of the Medical Board and the direction for fresh medico-legal examination are intended solely to facilitate the ascertainment of the actual cause and manner of death. Nothing contained in this judgment or in the proceedings undertaken pursuant thereto shall be construed as a finding regarding the culpability or innocence of any person. The competent investigating and judicial authorities shall proceed independently and strictly in

W.P. No.3746/2026.

accordance with law on the basis of the material ultimately brought on record.

18.The directions issued herein shall be treated as requiring immediate compliance. The concerned authorities shall not delay the process on account of inter-departmental correspondence or administrative formalities which do not constitute a lawful impediment to implementation of this order. The object of these directions is to ensure that, notwithstanding the considerable time already elapsed since the death of the deceased on 31.08.2025, such medical and forensic evidence as may still be available from the remains is examined without any further avoidable delay and that the petitioner is afforded a lawful opportunity to have the unresolved question concerning the cause of death addressed through an independent and scientifically informed process.

19.The office is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment, through Special Messenger and without any delay, to the District Magistrate, Islamabad Capital Territory, and to all other the concerned authorities, for to all other the concerned authorities with the directions contained herein. The concerned authorities shall acknowledge receipt of the judgment and ensure that the process is initiated forthwith, without awaiting any further order or communication from this Court.

(SHAHRUKH ARJUMAND)

JUDGE

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

Tanveer Ahmed/*