What Is 3-MPO? The Law Being Used
to Detain Imran Khan’s Sisters
After the detention of Imran Khan’s three sisters under 3-MPO, the law is back in the spotlight.
Here is how Pakistan’s preventive-detention law works, where it came from, and why its political
use remains controversial.
What exactly is 3-MPO?
“3-MPO” simply refers to Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. In Punjab, the law is known
today as the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960.
The key idea behind Section 3 is preventive detention. In other words, authorities do not necessarily have to wait
for a crime to be committed before acting. If the government believes a person may act in a way that could threaten
public safety or public order, it can issue an order to detain that person.
That makes 3-MPO different from an ordinary criminal case, Normally, someone is accused of an offence,
investigated, prosecuted and then tried in court. Under 3-MPO, detention can happen before the feared act takes
place, with the stated purpose of preventing possible unrest or disorder.
So, being detained under 3-MPO does not automatically mean a person has been convicted of a crime. It means the
authorities say the detention is necessary to prevent a possible threat to public order.
That distinction is central to understanding the controversy surrounding the law.
Where did 3-MPO come from?
The concept of preventive detention in South Asia goes back well before the creation of Pakistan.
During British colonial rule, the authorities used laws that allowed them to restrict or detain people
considered a threat to public order or state security, even without first securing a criminal conviction.
One of the most controversial examples was the Rowlatt Act of 1919, formally known as the
Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, 1919. It was introduced after World War I following the
recommendations of a committee headed by British judge Sir Sidney Rowlatt. The law gave the colonial
government extraordinary powers to deal with revolutionary and anti-government activity, including the power
to restrict a person’s liberty as a preventive measure rather than as punishment after conviction.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah strongly opposed the legislation.** Speaking in the Imperial Legislative Council in February
1919, he argued that giving such powers to the executive violated basic principles of law and justice and could
lead to abuse. He said:
“I am a firm believer that no man’s liberty should be taken away for a single minute without a proper judicial inquiry.”
Jinnah ultimately resigned from the Imperial Legislative Council on March 28, 1919, in protest against the law.
In his resignation letter to Viceroy Lord Chelmsford, he wrote that:
“The fundamental principles of justice have been uprooted and the constitutional rights of the people have been violated…”
Preventive detention, however, did not disappear with the end of British rule. After Pakistan was created in 1947,
similar powers appeared in laws including the Public Safety Ordinances of 1949 and 1952 and
the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952.
The Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance came later. It was promulgated on December 2, 1960,
during the government of General Ayub Khan. The ordinance replaced several earlier public-order laws
and created a new framework for preventive detention and public order and its Section 3 became
the provision commonly known today as “3-MPO.”
How does 3-MPO work?
The process usually starts when police or intelligence agencies report that a person may pose a threat to
public safety or public order.
The government or an authorized official such as a Deputy Commissioner can then issue a written
order to detain that person. The police carry out the arrest.
A 3-MPO order does not always mean 30 days of detention, although 30-day orders are common.
The length of detention is mentioned in the order.
Under Article 10 of Pakistan’s Constitution, the authorities must tell a detainee the grounds for
their detention within 15 days and give them an opportunity to make a representation against the order.
A detention order can also be challenged in the High Court. If the detention continues for more
than three months, the case must be reviewed by a Review Board.
Why is 3-MPO in the news?
3-MPO has returned to attention following the detention of former prime minister Imran Khan’s three sisters
ahead of PTI’s planned September 27 protest.
On September 20, 2026, Lahore’s Deputy Commissioner ordered Aleema Khan to be detained for 30 days under
Section 3 of the MPO. She was taken to Kot Lakhpat Jail. The order cited police reports alleging that her
activities could pose a threat to public safety and public order.
A day later, Imran Khan’s two other sisters, Dr Uzma Khan and Noreen Niazi, were also detained for 30 days
under the same law and taken to Kot Lakhpat Jail. Their detention orders similarly said they were considered a
risk to public safety and the maintenance of public order.
The detentions came ahead of PTI’s planned countrywide protest and march towards Islamabad. Other members of
Imran Khan’s family were also briefly taken into custody, but were later released.
The three sisters have challenged their detention in the Lahore High Court, arguing that the orders lack
specific grounds and were not issued according to the proper legal procedure. LHC declined an immediate request
to suspend or stay the detention orders, issuing notices for official replies from the Punjab government and
relevant authorities.
Their case provides a current example of how 3-MPO works: the authorities can order preventive detention on
public-order grounds without first securing a criminal conviction, while the person detained can challenge
that decision through the legal system.
How has 3-MPO been used in politics?
One of the main controversies around 3-MPO is its repeated use against political leaders, workers and protesters.
This is not limited to one political party or one period in Pakistan’s history. Different governments have used
preventive-detention laws against political opponents and activists.
Pakistani courts have also raised concerns about this pattern. In a major 2023 judgment, the Islamabad High Court
said preventive-detention powers had at times been used to control political activity, especially during periods of
political tension and protest.
An early example came during Ayub Khan’s government, when politician Maulvi Farid Ahmad was detained after making
speeches critical of the government. The Lahore High Court later held that criticism of the government alone could
not be treated as a threat to public order.
The issue became prominent again after the May 9, 2023 protests, when several PTI leaders and workers were
detained under MPO orders. Courts later examined a number of these cases and questioned whether the authorities
had enough evidence to justify the detentions.
The debate has returned in September 2026, after the detention of Imran Khan’s sisters and other PTI activists
ahead of the party’s planned protest.
Authorities argue that 3-MPO is needed when political protests may lead to violence, serious disruption or
threats to public safety. Critics, however, say the law can also be used to restrict political activity before
any crime has been proven.
The bigger picture
3-MPO gives the state the power to act before an expected threat to public order turns into an offence.
That can make it an important preventive tool, but it also raises concerns because a person can lose their
liberty without first being convicted of a crime.
The detention of Imran Khan’s three sisters has brought that debate back into focus. The authorities
say their detention is necessary to protect public order ahead of political protests, while their lawyers
are challenging the orders in the Lahore High Court. As of September 25, the court had not finally
ruled on whether the detention orders were lawful.
Their case therefore captures the central question surrounding 3-MPO: how far should the state be
allowed to go in preventing possible disorder before it begins restricting lawful political activity
and personal liberty?