PTI Sept 27 march: IHC bars use of govt machinery for political protests

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday ruled that no political party has the legal authority to block public places or obstruct the movement of citizens, as it issued its decision on a petition concerning a possible Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) long march and protest on September 27, Aaj News reported.

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

A citizen had 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 had submitted that his client was a trader in Islamabad and would be “directly affected” by the planned protest.

The court directed the government and administration to ensure that Islamabad’s major roads remain open during any protest and that citizens’ daily activities are not disrupted.

The IHC also directed provincial governments, particularly chief ministers, to ensure that government machinery and resources are not used for political protests or marches. It observed that there was no legal justification for using state resources for the purposes of any political party.

The decision was announced after a three-member larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar and comprising Justice Azam Khan and Justice Asif, completed hearing arguments in the case.

Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, Islamabad Advocate General Naveed Malik, the prosecutor general, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Secretary Shahab Ali Shah and KP Inspector General of Police appeared before the court.

With the court’s permission, videos of PTI protests in 2022 and 2024 were also played in the courtroom.

During arguments, Islamabad advocate general alleged that government machinery had been used during the 2022 protest and that cranes were used to remove barriers placed by the Islamabad administration to stop the march.

He alleged that protesters had set fire to property at D-Chowk and repeated similar actions during the 2024 protest, which he described as an attempt to forcefully enter Islamabad.

The advocate general also argued that PTI leaders were using slogans such as “freedom or martyrdom”, which, in his view, did not indicate a peaceful gathering. He said the protest appeared to have two main objectives — the release of a prisoner and the removal of the government — and argued that both demands were unconstitutional.

He maintained that no protest could be held without permission from the magistrate, saying organisers were required to submit an application under the law.

Malik told the court that the administration could impose Section 144 and make security arrangements, but could not use lethal force against its own citizens if a large number of protesters entered Islamabad. He urged the court to intervene before the situation got out of control.

The petitioner’s counsel, meanwhile, argued that the KP chief minister was publicly speaking about bringing four million people for the protest. He said that if such a protest over what he described as unconstitutional demands was not stopped and the court did not issue directions, the administration would be left without an effective remedy.

During the hearing, the court summoned the KP police chief to the rostrum and asked him to read out the affidavit submitted before the court.

Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar asked the IGP whether police would stop and disperse any gathering that was illegal or unconstitutional.

The KP IGP assured the court that an affidavit had been submitted in accordance with its directions and that any illegal action or advance from the province would be stopped.

After the KP advocate general submitted a written report, the court reserved its decision and subsequently announced the ruling.