By Asif Naveed
ISLAMABAD (MNN); The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday questioned the maintainability of a petition challenging the PTI’s planned nationwide protest in Islamabad on September 27, with the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general arguing that the petitioner had an alternative legal remedy available before the Islamabad chief commissioner.
A larger bench headed by IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, along with Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Muhammad Asif, heard the petition filed by citizen Waqas Ahmed.
The PTI has announced the September 27 protest to demand the release of party founder Imran Khan and campaign for the supremacy of the Constitution.
The petitioner has argued that the proposed protest could disrupt routine life, traffic and commercial activities in the federal capital.
KP AG challenges petition’s maintainability
During the hearing, KP Advocate General Shah Faisal Utmankhel argued that the petitioner could approach the Islamabad chief commissioner for an appropriate remedy. Therefore, he maintained, the high court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution could not be invoked because another adequate legal remedy was available.
He also pointed out that the petition had been filed against a political party, but the PTI had not been impleaded as a respondent.
Chief Justice Dogar questioned whether the PTI was actually planning to undertake the proposed long march and asked why the party had not been made a respondent in the case.
The chief justice also asked the KP advocate general whether he endorsed statements attributed to KP Chief Minister Sohail Afridi regarding the proposed protest.
Utmankhel replied that the advocate general’s office was concerned with the chief minister’s official responsibilities rather than his political narrative.
On the court’s direction, he read out the oath taken by the KP chief minister and maintained that none of the chief minister’s statements constituted a violation of his constitutional oath.
Court asks about CM’s loyalty to state
Referring to Article 5 of the Constitution, Chief Justice Dogar asked whether the chief minister was constitutionally required to remain loyal to the state.
“CM Afridi is very much loyal to the state,” the KP advocate general replied.
He reiterated that political statements made by the chief minister did not fall within the advocate general’s legal domain and suggested that both the PTI and the chief minister should be made parties to the case.
The KP chief secretary was subsequently summoned to explain the provincial government’s position. He adopted a similar stance, saying political statements were matters for the political party.
When questioned about whether the chief minister had issued any instructions to government officials concerning the planned march, the chief secretary assured the court that provincial officials would not be permitted to act beyond their constitutional authority.
Chief justice says protests can be held in provinces
Chief Justice Dogar recalled that the court had previously been told that the proposed march was intended to strengthen the judiciary. He also noted that the PTI had previously failed to comply with court directions relating to its protest marches.
Justice Muhammad Azam Khan asked whether a chief minister could announce or support a long march and sit-in before formal permission for such a protest had been granted.
Utmankhel responded that processions and marches were organised by political parties and citizens.
He argued that Islamabad belonged to all provinces and could not be restricted only to its residents, saying a peaceful long march should not be stopped.
The chief justice responded that the court also wanted the rule of law and constitutional principles strengthened, but said there was no need to come to Islamabad for that purpose and that protests could be held in the provinces.
Utmankhel questioned whether residents of the federal capital who participated in the protest would also be expelled from Islamabad.
He clarified that he was appearing before the court only to provide legal assistance and was not representing any political party.
Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan AGs present positions
Punjab Advocate General Barrister Zaffarullah Khan also appeared before the bench and argued that the IHC could issue directions concerning actions originating outside its territorial jurisdiction if those actions had the potential to affect the federal capital.
He said he strongly supported civil liberties but noted that protesters in previous demonstrations had allegedly carried weapons, resulting in casualties among police personnel.
Responding to references to Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz’s remarks, Zaffarullah said the Punjab advocate general’s office was not concerned with her political statements. He added that she was not a party to the petition and that her remarks had been cited out of context.
Sindh Advocate General Jawad Dero said the matter did not directly involve the Sindh government but assured the court that any directions issued by it would be implemented.
Balochistan Advocate General Adnan Basharat argued that large-scale protests could disrupt educational institutions, hospitals, roads and highways. He also cited portions of a 2019 Supreme Court judgment concerning the adverse effects of mass processions.
He urged the court to declare that no political party, provincial government or political leadership should be allowed to obstruct the smooth functioning of daily life.
After hearing the arguments, the IHC adjourned further proceedings until September 14.
