Latest News

Baluchistan High Court admits petition against Afghan repatriation drive

The petition further argued that Afghans married to Pakistani citizens qualify for nationality under the Pakistan Citizenship Act of 1951, and that mass expulsions violate several constitutional protections, including the rights to life, equality, and education.

Published

on

The Baluchistan High Court on Monday admitted a constitutional petition challenging the government’s ongoing repatriation of Afghan refugees and summoned federal and provincial authorities to respond.

A two-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Rozi Khan Bareach and Justice Sardar Ahmed Halimi, heard the plea filed by Advocate Syed Nazir Agha. He requested the court to suspend the repatriation campaign for six months, arguing that it was causing severe hardships for Afghan families living in Pakistan.

Agha told the court that thousands of Afghan children are currently studying in schools and colleges across Baluchistan and are only months away from their annual examinations. Forcing them to leave now, he said, would disrupt their education.

He also warned that many Afghan families risk losing property and livelihoods built over decades in the province.

The petition further argued that Afghans married to Pakistani citizens qualify for nationality under the Pakistan Citizenship Act of 1951, and that mass expulsions violate several constitutional protections, including the rights to life, equality, and education.

The court, after initial arguments, declared the petition admissible and issued notices to the respondents, which include the federal interior secretary, the Ministry of States and Frontier Regions, the Baluchistan chief secretary, and senior security officials.

The petition comes against the backdrop of Pakistan’s nationwide repatriation campaign, launched in late 2023, which has seen hundreds of thousands of Afghans—both documented and undocumented—return across the border. Authorities say the policy is aimed at addressing security concerns, but rights groups have criticized it as hasty and harmful to vulnerable communities, particularly women and children.

The case will be taken up again at the next scheduled hearing once the government submits its written replies.

Trending

Exit mobile version