IHC adjourns PTI protest case as KP govt defends Sept 27 march

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday heard arguments over a petition seeking restrictions on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) planned September 27 protest in the capital.

The Islamabad attorney general argued that government officials and state resources could not be used to facilitate a political gathering, while the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government defended the proposed march as a peaceful political activity.

The court, however, did not issue any order stopping or banning the march and adjourned the hearing until Friday after the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general sought more time to present his arguments.

A bench headed by Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar examined the legal status of an earlier court order concerning protests in Islamabad and questioned whether provincial officials would be bound by directions issued by the high court.

During the hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan referred to a statement made by PTI founder Imran Khan in 2022 regarding his intention to come to Islamabad’s D-Chowk for a protest.

The attorney general said then-IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah had been part of the bench and that the statement had been made part of the court’s order.

He also told the court that a petition concerning the matter had been filed in November 2024, but no fresh petition had so far been filed by a political party, according to the proceedings.

Awan further referred to statements made by public office-holders, including the chief minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, in connection with protests in Islamabad.

State machinery cannot be used for protest

The attorney general referred to legislation enacted in 2024 concerning protests and public gatherings in Islamabad and also read portions of the Supreme Court’s Faizabad sit-in judgment, delivered by former chief justice Qazi Faiz Isa.

He argued that the state had a responsibility to maintain public order and that even a peaceful protest could not justify the use of government machinery or resources for political purposes.

“State resources should not be used even for a peaceful protest,” the attorney general argued.

He said government officials could not be deployed for a political protest and added that where an executive authority failed to fulfil its responsibilities, the high court had the power to issue appropriate directions.

The attorney general maintained that the chief secretary and inspector general of police of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were bound to comply with orders issued by the Islamabad High Court.

Chief Justice Dogar questioned whether the two senior provincial officials were indeed bound by the court’s orders.

The attorney general replied that they were.

He also observed that it would be difficult for any official to disregard an order issued by the chief executive of the province.

Court questions status of November 2024 order

Chief Justice Dogar specifically asked whether the Islamabad High Court’s November 2024 order had been challenged before any other court or had attained finality.

Awan replied that, according to his information, the order had not been challenged.

The court’s questions indicated that the legal status and continuing effect of the earlier order could be relevant to the present dispute over the proposed PTI gathering.

The attorney general also argued that if an executive institution failed to perform its legal responsibilities, the high court could issue directions to ensure compliance with the law.

KP government defends PTI march

The court subsequently called Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Advocate General to the rostrum and asked him to respond to the arguments presented by the attorney general.

The KP law officer objected to the petition, arguing that it was premature.

He pointed out that the chief executive of the province had been referred to in the proceedings despite not being a party to the case.

The advocate general also questioned why PTI’s proposed long march was being portrayed as an attack, arguing that the march was intended to support the judiciary.

Chief Justice Dogar responded by thanking the advocate general for his stated support for the judiciary but questioned the suggestion that the judiciary needed backing from a political party.

“Is the judiciary so weak that it needs to be strengthened?” the chief justice asked.

He said the judiciary was not so weak that it required the support of a political party.

No decision to stop march

The most significant outcome of Thursday’s hearing was that the court **did not issue a final order either banning or stopping PTI’s September 27 march**.

The KP advocate general sought an adjournment to present his arguments in the case.

The court accepted the request and adjourned the hearing until Friday.

The matter therefore remains pending, with the court yet to decide whether any restrictions or directions are required concerning the planned protest.

PTI maintains September 27 plan

Meanwhile, PTI’s core committee has decided to proceed with the plan to hold the Islamabad march on September 27, according to party sources.

The committee discussed the petition seeking to stop the march and received a briefing from PTI leader and lawyer Salman Akram Raja on its legal aspects.

The meeting also discussed the reported placement and seizure of containers and measures being taken to restrict movement into and within Islamabad.

According to party sources, the committee decided that the march would proceed even if the court issued an adverse decision.

The sources, however, said that the authority to call off the protest rested with PTI founder Imran Khan.

The party has also prepared different contingency plans in case of arrests and a possible closure or blockade of Islamabad.

PTI lawmakers have been asked to arrange funds for the planned march, with members of the assemblies directed to contribute immediately, according to the sources.

For now, however, PTI’s September 27 protest remains on its announced schedule, while the Islamabad High Court has yet to rule on the petition seeking restrictions on the gathering.