KARACHI: In a potentially far-reaching development for police accountability and medico-legal investigations, Karachi Police Surgeon Dr. Summaiya Syed has issued a standing order directing that all deaths resulting from alleged police encounters be treated as custodial deaths for medico-legal purposes, a significant move that comes amid a sharp increase in encounter killings and previously reported tensions between police investigators and the Police Surgeon over forensic findings.
The office order, bearing PSK No. 1758, directs all medico-legal officers (MLOs) to issue medico-legal certificates under the prescribed dead-on-arrival protocol and refer alleged encounter death cases to the relevant magistrate under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for judicial directions.
The directive further requires MLOs to refer such cases to the Police Surgeon Karachi for the identification of medical teams responsible for conducting post-mortem examinations under the applicable provisions of Sections 174 or 176 CrPC.
The development assumes particular importance as police statistics indicate a significant increase in alleged encounter killings in Karachi. According to figures reported by Dawn, at least 197 suspects were killed in alleged police encounters between January 1 and October 25, 2026, compared with 109 during the corresponding period last year, representing an increase of approximately 81 percent.
Police also reported 1,437 encounters during the period, compared with 840 in the corresponding period of 2025. Human rights representatives have expressed concerns over the rising fatalities, while senior police officials have defended the encounters as genuine operations against armed criminals.
The standing order has emerged against this controversial background, raising questions about whether the new medico-legal procedures could strengthen independent scrutiny of encounter deaths and ensure greater transparency in forensic investigations.
Under the directive, MLOs must document the history provided with the body, the state and extent of rigor mortis, post-mortem lividity, the condition of clothing and the number and location of injuries across different anatomical regions.
Significantly, the order prohibits MLOs from determining entry and exit wounds in the initial medico-legal certificate. The signatures and identifying details of accompanying police officers must also be recorded.
These instructions could have important implications in firearm-related deaths, particularly where the interpretation of bullet injuries and wound trajectories becomes central to criminal investigations.
The timing of the order is especially noteworthy in view of previously reported disagreements between police investigators and Dr. Summaiya Syed over medico-legal findings in the Mir Raza Ali death case.
A controversy emerged after the Police Surgeon questioned aspects of the initial post-mortem findings, including observations concerning firearm injuries and bullet trajectories. Police authorities subsequently challenged her observations, arguing that conclusions based on photographs without personally examining the body were premature.
The controversy led to further medico-legal examination and judicial scrutiny, highlighting tensions surrounding forensic independence, investigative procedures and the handling of sensitive death cases.
Although no evidence has established a direct connection between those disagreements and the latest standing order, its issuance raises an important question: Is the directive merely a procedural clarification, or does it reflect an effort to strengthen the authority and independence of medico-legal professionals in cases involving police personnel?
Another fundamental question concerns the legal implications of categorising every alleged encounter death as a custodial death. Section 176 CrPC provides a framework for magisterial inquiries into deaths in police custody, but whether the same classification can automatically be applied to every alleged encounter fatality, regardless of the circumstances, requires legal clarification.
The order does not itself establish that every encounter victim was physically in police custody or that police personnel were responsible for an unlawful killing. Nevertheless, its wording could significantly influence the procedures followed before post-mortem examinations and subsequent investigations.
The directive also raises questions about the procedures previously followed in Karachi. Were alleged encounter deaths routinely referred to magistrates before this order? If not, what legal or administrative shortcomings prompted the new instructions? Will the directive apply uniformly to all police stations and medico-legal centres, and how will compliance be monitored?
Another important issue is whether the Police Surgeon issued the standing order under existing statutory and administrative powers or after consultation with the Sindh Health Department, Home Department and senior police authorities.
The requirement for the Police Surgeon's office to identify post-mortem teams could also prove significant in disputed cases. However, whether this mechanism will improve forensic independence, prevent potential interference and strengthen the credibility of medico-legal evidence remains to be seen.
The position of Karachi police authorities regarding the directive has yet to be obtained. Their response will be particularly important in determining whether the order is regarded as a routine administrative measure or a substantial change in the investigation of alleged encounter fatalities.
Clarification from Dr. Summaiya Syed and the Sindh Health Department is also necessary regarding the circumstances that prompted the directive, its legal basis and the procedures established for implementation.
With nearly 200 suspects reported killed in alleged police encounters in Karachi during the first ten months of 2026, the order has potentially significant implications for accountability, judicial oversight and the protection of forensic evidence.
The central question now is whether this standing order will lead to more transparent and independent investigations of alleged police encounter deaths or remain another administrative directive whose effectiveness depends entirely on implementation and cooperation among the police, health authorities and judicial institutions.
