IHC decides to constitute larger bench for plea against PTI’s protest

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) decided to constitute a larger bench to hear a petition against the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s planned Sept 27 protest, and issued notices to the Inspectors General of all the four provinces and Islamabad.

A single bench of Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar on Tuesday heard the petition filed against the PTI’s planned protest and termed the matter sensitive observing that it could have constitutional implications.

The Court issued notices to the police chiefs of all four provinces and Islamabad, seeking their attendance at the next hearing to be held on September 10.

The PTI has announced a nationwide protest on Sept 27 to demand the release of party founder Imran Khan and mobilise people for the supremacy of the Constitution.

A citizen, Waqas Ahmed, filed a petition challenging the planned move in the IHC because the protest could disrupt routine life, traffic and business activities in the federal capital.

The petitioner’s counsel, Akhtar Cheena, submitted that his client was a trader in Islamabad and would be “directly affected” by the planned protest.

The IHC CJ asked how the petitioner would be affected; the lawyer replied that the protest had been announced by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi, who planned to lead the demonstration in Islamabad. This could disrupt businesses and normal life in the capital, he explained.

The lawyer also read out newspaper clippings containing statements attributed to the KP CM and argued that several cases against PTI leaders were already pending in the courts.

The counsel remarked that all these cases have to be decided according to law and contended that if pressure through street protests was accepted as a means of obtaining relief in one case, people across the country with cases pending in court could use the same means.

He also voiced concerns about the possibility of an attack on Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail — where Imran is incarcerated — asking whether a plan similar to the May 9, 2023 attack at the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi could be carried out.

He termed the planned protest “illegal” and recalled the Nov 2024 protest by the PTI.

The lawyer said that casualties were also reported in the incident. He said three Rangers personnel had lost their lives and questioned how that happened if the claims that the protesters were unarmed were true.

CJ Dogar inquired whether the protesters would have the KP government’s machinery. He responded that despite the federal government’s communication, KP government machinery had allegedly been used during the 2024 PTI protest.

The lawyer further claimed that, so far, no application had been submitted before the Islamabad district magistrate, seeking permission for the planned protest. He further contended that Imran was a convicted prisoner and that two cases concerning him were pending before the IHC.

He also read out the orders passed in the 190 million Al-Qadir Trust case and argued that the court had repeatedly asked Imran’s counsel to advance arguments on the appeal against his conviction, but arguments had not been concluded. “This is his position in a legal matter before this court,” the counsel said.

He then questioned whether the government could direct a court to suspend a sentence in an appeal merely because two million people came out in support of the convict. “Can the government direct the court to suspend the sentence in an appeal? Is this possible?” the counsel asked and asserted that the Constitution clearly provided for the independence of the judiciary.

Referring to political developments in other provinces, the counsel said a march had also taken place in Sindh, and KP authorities had announced that facilities would be provided to the protesters.

After hearing the initial arguments, CJ Dogar observed that the matter was sensitive and had constitutional implications.

The court consequently decided to constitute a larger bench to hear the petition and issued notices to the relevant parties, including the Attorney General of Pakistan, chief secretaries and inspectors general (IG) of all four provinces, the Islamabad chief commissioner, Islamabad deputy commissioner and Islamabad IG.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026