ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday reserved its verdict on a petition challenging the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) proposed long march towards the federal capital on September 27.
A three-member bench headed by IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar heard arguments from the Islamabad attorney general and the petitioner’s counsel.
PTI has announced nationwide protests and a long march towards Islamabad to demand the release of party founder Imran Khan, who remains in jail.
Government raises security concerns
During the hearing, the Islamabad attorney general argued that there was no assurance the proposed PTI march would remain peaceful.
He referred to previous PTI protests, claiming that government machinery had been brought into Islamabad during earlier long marches.
The attorney general also referred to a statement about “either freedom or martyrdom” and requested permission to show the court videos from the PTI’s November 2024 protest.
The court initially observed that playing videos in the courtroom was not standard judicial practice. However, Justice Dogar subsequently permitted a one-time screening of the footage.
The videos showed preparations by Islamabad police, alleged shelling of police personnel, the 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 showing Rangers personnel being run over by a vehicle was also presented before the court.
“By any means, this is not a scene of a peaceful gathering,” the attorney general argued, claiming that parts of Islamabad had been severely damaged by fires.
‘Rights subject to law’
The Islamabad attorney general said citizens have fundamental rights, including the right to peaceful protest, but argued that such rights are subject to restrictions relating to public order, peace and national security.
He said anyone seeking to hold a protest or organise a long march in Islamabad would have to approach the magistrate and provide details of the planned demonstration.
According to the attorney general, the district magistrate could reject an application if satisfied that adequate security arrangements had not been made.
He also defended the use of containers in Islamabad and said the federal government had the authority to designate areas of the capital as a Red Zone.
PTI Chief Warns Sindh Division Without Public Consent Would Weaken Federation
The government, he said, was not opposed to any political party or leader, but protests had to be conducted in accordance with the law.
The attorney general further claimed that PTI had not submitted an application to the magistrate seeking permission for its proposed march.
Court questions political statements
The attorney general described PTI’s demands for the release of Imran Khan and removal of the government as unlawful, arguing that the release of a convicted prisoner could only be secured through the courts.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Dogar questioned whether government representatives also had the right to make statements that could provoke citizens.
“Can chief ministers or government representatives make such speeches?” the chief justice asked.
The attorney general replied that no one had such a right, maintaining that provoking citizens did not fall within the protection of freedom of expression.
After the government’s arguments concluded, the petitioner’s counsel questioned whether authorities should wait for damage to occur before taking preventive measures.
He referred to statements that up to four million people could potentially enter Islamabad and raised concerns about the impact of the proposed protest on residents of the capital.
The counsel also argued that repeated statements by PTI leaders about coming to Islamabad had heightened concerns over the planned demonstration.
He further raised questions about the personal conduct of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi and its alleged impact on the discharge of his official responsibilities.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the IHC reserved its decision and directed the parties to await the verdict.
