Govt plans ₹13,000-cr infra rollout, welfare drive from Sept 17: Rekha Gupta

On September 27, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) ruled that no political party has the legal right to obstruct public areas or disrupt citizens' movement, addressing a petition related to a prospective Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) march and protest. The PTI had planned a nationwide demonstration on September 27 to advocate for the release of their founder, Imran Khan, and to emphasize the importance of constitutional supremacy.

A citizen had lodged a petition in the IHC, arguing that the planned protest could disrupt daily life, traffic, and business operations in the capital. The court directed the government and administration to guarantee that Islamabad's major roads stay accessible during any protest and to prevent any interference with citizens' regular activities.

The court also instructed provincial governments, especially chief ministers, to prevent the use of government resources for political protests or marches, stating that there was no legal basis for using state resources to further any party's interests. The decision came after a three-member bench led by Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar, consisting of Justices Azam Khan and Asif, concluded their hearing of the case.

The Attorney General, Islamabad Advocate General Naveed Malik, and the Prosecutor General, along with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Secretary Shahab Ali Shah and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Inspector General of Police, testified before the court. The court permitted videos of PTI protests in 2022 and 2024 to be shown in the courtroom during the arguments.

During the proceedings, the Islamabad Advocate General claimed that government machinery had been utilized during the 2022 protest, citing instances of cranes removing barriers placed by the Islamabad administration to prevent the march. He also stated that protesters had set fire to property at D-Chowk and repeated similar actions during the 2024 protest, describing it as an attempt to forcefully enter Islamabad.

The advocate general alleged that PTI leaders were employing slogans like "freedom or martyrdom," which he found inappropriate for a peaceful gathering, as they seemed to convey two main objectives - the release of a prisoner and the removal of the government. He maintained that no protest could take place without obtaining permission from the magistrate and that organizers were required to file an application under the law.

The advocate general argued that the administration could impose Section 144 and make security arrangements but could not resort to lethal force against its own citizens if a substantial number of protesters entered Islamabad. He urged the court to intervene before the situation escalated. On the other hand, the petitioner's counsel contended that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief minister publicly stated that four million people would participate in the protest.

He argued that if such an unlawful protest demanding unconstitutional measures was not halted and the court did not issue directives, the administration would lack an effective means to address the issue. During the hearing, the court summoned the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa police chief to the podium, instructing him to read the affidavit submitted before the court.

Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar questioned the Inspector General of Police about the police's willingness to disperse any unlawful or unconstitutional gathering. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa IGP assured the court that an affidavit had been submitted according to the court's directives and that any illegal actions or advances from the province would be halted.

After the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general presented a written report, the court reserved its decision, and subsequently announced the ruling.