‘PTI Sept 27 long march’: IHC has no jurisdiction to hear plea, says KP AG
ISLAMABAD: The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Advocate General demurred a petition challenging the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) planned September 27 long march, arguing that the jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) could not be invoked under the present circumstances.
A larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar and comprising Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Muhammad Asif, on Friday heard a petition filed by a citizen, Waqas Ahmed, against the PTI’s planned protest. The petitioner contended that the protest could disrupt routine life, traffic and business activities in the federal capital.
The bench directed the KP Chief Secretary and Inspector General of Police to file affidavits on the next hearing that the government machinery would not be used for PTI’s long march. It allowed the parties to file rejoinders, and said the officials from other provinces were not required to appear on the next date.
During the proceedings, KP AG Shah Faisal Utmankhel argued that an appropriate legal remedy was available to the petitioner before the Islamabad Chief Commissioner and that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution could not be invoked in the present circumstances.
He also pointed out that the petition was moved against a political party that had not been impleaded as a respondent. He questioned why the PTI had not been made a party to the petition if the proceedings concerned its planned protest.
Following this, CJ Dogar asked the KP Advocate General whether the PTI was actually planning to undertake the long march. Without specifically referring to the KP chief minister’s recent remarks, he further asked the AG whether he agreed with the statements made by KP Chief Minister Sohail Afridi regarding the planned long march.
Utmankhel replied that the office of the advocate general was not concerned with the chief minister’s political narrative but only with his official responsibilities.
Upon the Court’s direction, the AG read out the oath administered to the KP CM, and submitted he (CM) had not violated his oath through any of his statements.
The Chief Justice, while referring to Article 5 of the Constitution, asked whether the chief minister was constitutionally bound to remain loyal to the state. “CM Afridi is very much loyal to the state,” Utmankhel replied, adding that the chief minister had made no statement against the Constitution, the law, or the state.
The Chief Justice observed that the chief minister wore “two hats”— as head of the provincial government and as a member of a political party. The KP AG responded that if the chief minister were not a party member, he would not have become chief minister.
The KP chief secretary was then called to the rostrum to explain the provincial government’s position regarding the planned protest. He adopted a stance similar to that of the advocate general. He; however, assured the court that KP government officials would not be allowed to act beyond their constitutional limits.
CJ Dogar then recalled that the court had been told the planned march intended to strengthen the judiciary — seemingly a reference to the KP AG’s remarks from Thursday’s hearing — and pointed out that previously, the PTI had not complied with directions issued by the courts regarding its protest marches.
Justice Khan asked whether the chief minister could announce or support a long march and sit-in before formal approval had been granted for the protest.
At that, Utmankhel replied that such processions and marches were organised by political parties and citizens. He referred to a statement by Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz, saying she was more concerned about developments in KP than in India.
The advocate general clarified that he was appearing before the court to provide legal assistance and was not representing a political party. He then requested the court to incorporate his arguments in the order sheet.
Punjab Advocate General Barrister Zaffarullah Khan, who was present in the courtroom, argued that the IHC could issue directions concerning an action originating outside its territorial jurisdiction if that action had the potential to affect the court’s territorial jurisdiction. He said that as the Punjab AG, he was a staunch supporter of civil liberties but said that protesters in previous demonstrations had allegedly used weapons, resulting in casualties among police personnel.
Responding to the KP advocate general’s reference to statements by the Punjab chief minister, Zaffarullah said the advocate general had nothing to do with the Punjab chief minister’s political statements, adding that she was not a party to the petition and her remarks had been cited out of context.
Sindh Advocate General Jawad Dero said the matter did not directly concern the Sindh government, but assured the court of the implementation of any directives.
Balochistan Advocate General Adnan Basharat argued that large-scale protests could disrupt activities at educational institutions, hospitals, roads and highways. He also read excerpts from a 2019 Supreme Court judgment highlighting the adverse impacts of mass processions.
He requested the court to declare that no political party, provincial government or political leadership could create hurdles in the smooth functioning of daily life.
The case was adjourned until September 14 (Monday).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026