3-MPO: How does the law work, who can issue it? Everything you need to know

3-MPO is the common shorthand for Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance, 1960. It is a preventive-detention provision that allows the government to order a person's arrest and detention when it is satisfied that keeping that person at liberty could be prejudicial to public safety or the maintenance of public order. 

The law has been in the news again in September 2026, with authorities using Section 3 detention orders against political activists and, most recently, Imran Khan's sisters in Lahore ahead of a planned PTI protest. 

What does Section 3 allow?

Section 3(1) says that the government, if satisfied that detention is necessary to prevent a person from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety or the maintenance of public order, may issue a written order for the person's arrest and detention.

The law also allows the detention period to be extended, subject to the other safeguards contained in Section 3 and the Constitution.

The text of the ordinance permits extensions of up to six months at a time, but constitutional safeguards become particularly important once detention passes three months. 

Who initiates a 3-MPO detention?

The process can begin with information or a recommendation from local authorities or police.

Under Section 3(2), a District Magistrate or another government servant authorised for this purpose who has reason to believe that someone has acted, is acting, or is about to act in a manner prejudicial to public safety or public order is required to refer the matter to the government for orders. 

Why is 3-MPO controversial?

The controversy largely comes from the tension between preventive public-order powers and individual liberty.

The government's argument in a particular case can be that detention is necessary to prevent violence, disruption, road blockades or other threats before they occur.

Critics, lawyers and political parties have argued in various cases that preventive detention can be used too broadly, particularly when the detainees are political activists or protesters.

These are case-specific claims, however. Whether an individual detention is lawful depends on the order, the authority that issued it, the evidence relied upon, the grounds supplied to the detainee and compliance with constitutional safeguards.