By Asif Naveed
ISLAMABAD (MNN); The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday disposed of a petition challenging the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) proposed September 27 long march towards the federal capital, while issuing comprehensive directions to prevent the use of state machinery for political protests and to safeguard citizens’ constitutional rights.
A three-member larger bench headed by IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar issued a four-page written order directing provincial governments, the Islamabad administration and relevant authorities to ensure that no political party, leader or public office-holder uses government resources or obstructs public roads and thoroughfares.
The court categorically held that no political party, political leader or provincial government has any legal authority to block Islamabad’s roads, highways, interchanges, toll plazas or entry and exit routes. It said even a person holding public office could not occupy public roads or otherwise interfere with citizens’ lawful movement.
The IHC directed provincial governments to ensure that government vehicles, machinery, funds, equipment and other state resources are not used for any march, rally, procession or protest in Islamabad.
It further ordered that no government official or employee should provide assistance or facilitation to a political march, nor should any government employee be compelled, persuaded or pressured to participate in such activities.
The court directed chief secretaries, the Islamabad chief commissioner and inspectors general of police to establish mechanisms through which government officials could immediately report any coercion, pressure or inducement by political leaders or public office-holders to facilitate a march.
Officials found violating the court’s directions should face immediate departmental action, the order stated.
Citizens’ Rights Must Be Protected
The IHC ruled that activities disrupting citizens’ fundamental rights in Islamabad would amount to a violation of the Constitution. Any person involved in such activities would be liable for consequences under the Constitution and law.
The court particularly directed authorities to ensure that political marches, rallies or demonstrations do not affect freedom of movement, access to educational institutions, medical facilities, businesses and commercial activities.
It said no individual or political group could obstruct citizens’ movement in the name of political activity, adding that blocking routes leading towards Islamabad would violate the fundamental rights of citizens.
The court also observed that if a public office-holder engaged in activities that infringed citizens’ fundamental rights, it could amount to a violation of the constitutional oath, making the official liable for consequences under the law.
The Islamabad administration was directed to ensure protection of citizens’ constitutional rights, while provincial governments and all relevant authorities were ordered to strictly implement the court’s directions.
Government Opposes PTI March
During the hearing, the Islamabad attorney general argued that the PTI had used government machinery during previous long marches and that there was no indication that its proposed September 27 march would remain peaceful.
He referred to PTI statements describing the protest as a struggle for “freedom or martyrdom” and sought permission to show footage of the party’s November 2024 protest.
Although the chief justice initially observed that showing videos in court was not normal judicial practice, Justice Dogar subsequently allowed the footage to be played.
The court was shown videos depicting police preparations, alleged attacks on law-enforcement personnel, removal of containers, fires at D-Chowk and the Green Belt, damage to public property and images of police personnel killed during the protests. Footage of Rangers personnel allegedly being run over by a vehicle was also shown.
The attorney general argued that the scenes did not represent a peaceful gathering and maintained that while citizens had fundamental rights, those rights had to be exercised within the framework of law, particularly where public order and national security were concerned.
He said anyone seeking permission for a protest or long march in Islamabad would have to approach the district magistrate and provide details regarding the proposed gathering and security arrangements. He maintained that authorities were legally empowered to place containers and designate areas of the capital as a Red Zone.
The government, he said, was not opposed to any particular political party or leader but wanted protests to be held according to the law. He also claimed that the PTI had not applied to the magistrate for permission for its proposed march.
The attorney general further described PTI demands, including the release of incarcerated party founder Imran Khan and removal of the government, as unlawful, arguing that the release of a convicted prisoner could only be sought through the courts.
Court Questions Government Statements Too
During the proceedings, Chief Justice Dogar also questioned whether government representatives had the right to provoke citizens through their public statements.
Responding to the court, the attorney general said no government representative had such a right and that provoking citizens could not be justified under freedom of expression.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that authorities should not wait until damage occurred, referring to claims that millions of people could potentially enter Islamabad. He also highlighted concerns about the disruption that a large-scale protest could cause to residents of the capital.
The PTI has announced nationwide protests and a long march towards Islamabad on September 27, demanding the release of party founder Imran Khan.
