Peshawar High Court seeks govt response to plea of two PTI MNAs

The Peshawar High Court has ordered the federal and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governments to respond to a petition filed by two PTI lawmakers seeking "unhindered" participation in the party's ongoing long march in their constituencies. The bench, comprising Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Farah Jamshed, heard preliminary arguments in the joint petition lodged by Sheharyar Afridi and Shandana Gulzar Khan, elected from Kohat and Peshawar, respectively.

The petitioners, represented by counsel Muazzam Butt, are seeking multiple reliefs under the Constitution's guarantee of fundamental rights, including the right to peacefully participate in and express views on the political march. They request the court to affirm that their actions will not be subject to adverse, coercive, or punitive measures solely due to their political affiliation or expression, as long as such actions are lawful and consistent with the Constitution and law.

The respondents in the case include the interior secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa home secretary, and the inspector general of police (IGP). The petitioners argued that any restrictions on their movement, assembly, or association must be imposed by a competent authority with lawful authority and only for a constitutionally permissible purpose. They emphasized that they wish to ensure the protection of their life, liberty, dignity, and lawful movement, particularly in light of the political climate and fears for their safety.

The PTI's long march is currently underway, and the petitioners seek assurances that it will proceed peacefully without interference or coercion. The court was urged to direct the respondents to ensure comprehensive security arrangements for the petitioners, given the prevailing political tensions and the potential risks to their safety.

The additional attorney general challenged the petition's maintainability, suggesting that the Islamabad High Court's previous judgment negated any basis for the current long march. However, the petitioners argued that the urgency of the situation required immediate action, as they feared irreparable harm to their constitutional rights and ability to fulfill their representative duties. The court acknowledged their apprehensions but noted that a decision could not be made without first hearing from the respondents.