A Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee in Pakistan-administered Kashmir says it will make a “highly significant announcement” on October 4, extending a protest campaign that has run for months. At the centre of the same story sits a question that a court in Muzaffarabad has now taken up five times without resolution: where is Shaukat Nawaz Mir?
The Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JKJAAC), declared unlawful by authorities, has said the announcement will come as its long-running agitation continues. The committee’s leadership, however, is itself shadowed by the unexplained status of one of its most prominent figures.
A family’s petition, a government denial
Mir’s family filed a petition in the Kashmir High Court on July 15, 2026, seeking his recovery. His sister, Yasmeen Mir, told the court that her brother had been arrested and was being held in illegal detention.
The petition annexed a request she had submitted to Thanah City police station on July 6. In it, she said Shaukat Mir had not returned home since June 5 and had not contacted his family. She cited media reports and a video circulating on social media that showed his alleged arrest, saying the uncertainty had left the family in severe distress. She asked police to provide confirmed information about her brother and, if any legal action was required against him, to produce him before a court.
The response from the police department described the family’s position as baseless. Police told the court that a public notice had been issued describing Shaukat Mir’s physical appearance and asking anyone with information about him to come forward.
At the first hearing, no lawyer appeared for Yasmeen Mir. The court directed her to attend future hearings with counsel, after which Shahid Ali Awan was appointed to represent the petitioner.
The June 30 claim and the video
Nearly three months before the petition, on June 30, 2026, the Awami Action Committee said in a statement that Shaukat Nawaz Mir had been arrested from the Dheerkot area. A video said to show the arrest circulated on social media. The Azadi Times verifed the footage.
On the same day, several local and international news outlets reported the arrest of Shaukat Reza Mir, citing officials. Deputy Commissioner Muzaffarabad Munir Qureshi confirmed the arrest to BBC Urdu and other outlets.
Since that initial reporting, however, Kashmir police and the administration have maintained a different position: that Shaukat Nawaz Mir, wanted in multiple cases, is not in police or state custody. Authorities announced a reward for information about him and said he was in hiding to avoid arrest.
What was argued in court
At a hearing on September 23, Mir’s lawyer, Shahid Ali Awan, told the court he had filed three applications.
The first argued that Shaukat Nawaz Mir was arrested in the presence of the Station House Officer (SHO) of Dheerkot police station, and that a video circulating on social media showed the SHO and other police personnel taking Mir with them. On that basis, the court was asked to summon the Dheerkot SHO to explain the action visible in the video and to state whether police had arrested Mir or not.
The second application sought permission to make material contained on a USB drive part of the court record. According to Awan, the USB contains the video of Mir’s alleged arrest and an alleged statement by the then law minister, Mian Abdul Waheed, in which he was said to have described the Dheerkot arrest operation as lawful. Awan said that if the court admits the video evidence, he will also seek forensic examination of the footage.
When journalists contacted former law minister Mian Abdul Waheed, he declined to comment on the matter. In its response submitted to the court, the police department described the Dheerkot SHO’s alleged detention of Mir as baseless.
The third application sought to add Yasmeen Mir’s brother, Gul Nawaz Mir, as a petitioner in the case.
All three applications have drawn objections in the High Court.
Objections from the Advocate General
Advocate General Nadeem Khan told BBC Urdu that a request had been made to add the current petitioner’s brother as a party, but under Section 491 of the relevant law no additional person can be made a party in a petition filed under that provision.
He also said that the petitioner’s request to submit a USB drive to the court had been objected to. In his view, this is the age of artificial intelligence, and there is a concern that the alleged video on the USB could have been produced or altered with AI. That, he said, is the basis for the objection to admitting the USB as evidence.
Police position: 42 cases, a bounty, and a man in hiding
Over the past four hearings, Kashmir police submitted its comments to the court, stating that 42 cases are registered against Shaukat Nawaz Mir: three in Rawalakot district, 22 in Bagh district and 17 in the state capital Muzaffarabad. Several of the cases were filed under the anti-terrorism law.
Police informed the court that Mir is wanted for investigation in these cases but is not in the custody of police within the limits of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, nor is he imprisoned in any police station.
The police position is that the petitioner’s claim that Dheerkot police detained Mir is entirely false, baseless and contrary to the facts. According to police, the Dheerkot SHO neither carried out any such operation nor made any such arrest.
Police further told the court that the government has set a reward of Rs10 million for information leading to Mir, and that because of his prior criminal record he is hiding at an unknown location.
The Advocate General, appearing for the Kashmir government, took the same position before the court: that Shaukat Nawaz Mir is not currently in state custody and that, according to the government, he is a fugitive in hiding because of pending cases.
No progress at the fifth hearing
The fifth hearing in the case was held on Wednesday, September 30, at the Kashmir High Court.
No substantive progress was made. The Advocate General filed an application stating that he was occupied in Mirpur on September 30 and asking for time to present his arguments.
The court granted the request and adjourned the hearing until October 5. It directed the Advocate General to appear in person at the next hearing and to complete his arguments on the applications.
What remains unanswered
The case now rests on two competing accounts that the court has not yet reconciled.
The family’s position is that Shaukat Nawaz Mir was arrested, that a video and a former minister’s alleged statement support this, and that the state must produce him or confirm where he is. The government’s position is that he was never in police custody, that he is a wanted man in dozens of cases, and that he is evading arrest.
Between those two accounts lie the questions the court is still being asked to answer: what does the Dheerkot video actually show, can it be authenticated, and if Mir was not arrested, why did multiple outlets and a deputy commissioner confirm an arrest on June 30?
The next hearing is scheduled for October 5. The JAAC’s promised announcement is due a day earlier, on October 4.VI