Balochistan High Court dismisses petition on withdrawal of Police security for MNA Adil Khan Bazai
Quetta, The Balochistan High Court has dismissed a constitutional petition filed by sitting MNA Adil Khan Bazai challenging the withdrawal of his official police security. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Muhammad Kamran Khan Malakhail and Justice Muhammad Najamuddin Mengal ruled that the mere fact that security had been provided in the past does not create a permanent or enforceable right to its continuation.
The court observed that apart from general allegations of threats and reference to FIR No. 64/2026, no substantive material was placed before it to demonstrate mala fide intent, violation of mandatory legal provisions, or arbitrary action by the authorities. The petitioner also failed to establish that respondents were legally bound to continue the deployment of seven police personnel irrespective of the current security assessment.
The bench held that threat perception is a dynamic process dependent on intelligence inputs and protective considerations, best assessed by competent administrative authorities. In the absence of concrete evidence of discrimination or bad faith, the court declined to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to interfere in matters falling within the exclusive domain of security agencies.
The judges noted that if the petitioner genuinely apprehends danger to his life or safety, he remains free to approach the relevant security authorities with supporting material for a fresh threat assessment, which will be examined objectively under applicable law and policy.
The court recalled that in Constitutional Petition No. 1352 of 2019, decided on November 29, 2021, the issue of private security deployment for parliamentarians and individuals had already been adjudicated. Pursuant to that decision, the Home Department of Balochistan issued Standard Operating Procedures on December 22, 2023 under the Balochistan Private Security Companies Ordinance, 2001, outlining the procedure for politicians and prominent persons facing genuine threats to seek recommendations from District Intelligence Coordination Committees or Divisional Threat Assessment Committees, and thereafter obtain approval for hiring registered private security firms.
The bench concluded that the petitioner is not deprived of remedies under the existing framework and may avail himself of the prescribed procedure. It emphasized that determining the nature and extent of security required is primarily the responsibility of competent authorities under law, not the court. On these grounds, the petition was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed without any order as to costs.