IHC directs chief ministers to ensure govt resources are not used for PTI's Sept 27 Islamabad march

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) recently ruled against a planned long march and protest by the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) in Islamabad on September 27. The court instructed all provincial chief ministers to ensure that government resources and official machinery were not utilized for the event. The PTI announced a nationwide demonstration to demand the release of its founder, Imran Khan, and to rally people in support of the Constitution.

The case was brought forward by a citizen, Waqas Ahmed, who argued that the protest could disrupt daily life, traffic, and business activities in the capital. A larger bench, led by IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, heard the plea. The court emphasized that no political party or leader has the lawful right to obstruct public roads, highways, or access to educational institutions and medical facilities. It also stated that no political party or leader should obstruct the free movement of citizens.

Additionally, the court directed that no public servant should be forced to participate in the protest, and that official vehicles, machinery, or other government equipment should not be used to facilitate the event. Any violations would be deemed a breach of the Constitution. The Islamabad administration, interior ministry, chiefs of staff, provincial police chiefs, and other relevant authorities were asked to enforce the court's directives.

During the hearing, the Islamabad Advocate General, Naveed Hayat Malik, presented videos of the PTI's protests from 2022 and 2024. The AG alleged that state machinery was involved in the 2022 protest, with barriers removed using cranes and property set on fire at D-Chowk. He also claimed that a police official was martyred and that vehicles were set ablaze near F-9 Park during the 2024 protest.

The AG further argued that the PTI's planned march had two objectives: the release of a convicted prisoner and the removal of the government, both of which are unconstitutional.