The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday disposed of a petition seeking a ban on the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)’s upcoming Sept. 27 long march to Islamabad, directing the chief ministers of all provinces to ensure no government resources or official machinery are used for protests.
Filed by citizen Waqas Ahmed, the petition had argued the demonstration could disrupt routine life, traffic and business activities in the federal capital and had cited disruptions caused by past protests as the basis for the plea.
After hearing arguments from all stakeholders, a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justices Muhammad Azam Khan and Muhammad Asif reserved its verdict before announcing the short order later. During today’s proceedings, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Inspector General of Police assured the court no “illegal or unconstitutional activities” would be allowed in connection with the protest.
In his arguments, Islamabad Advocate General Naveed Hayat Malik informed the bench that a miscellaneous application had been filed seeking permission to show videos of the PTI’s protests of 2022 and 2024. He said the PTI leadership was claiming its planned long march would remain peaceful and aimed to strengthen the judiciary and argued that he wished to place on record statements PTI leaders had issued regarding the demonstration.
While Justice Dogar initially did not accept this plea, he allowed the videos to be shown after a brief recess, though stressed this was a one-time occurrence. After the videos were shown, the Islamabad AG argued that no one could describe these demonstrations as peaceful. He alleged the PTI had used state machinery during the 2022 protest and that barriers placed by the Islamabad administration to stop the march were removed with the help of cranes.
He further argued that the protesters had set fire to property at D-Chowk and the clashes had resulted in the martyrdom of a police official. He said similar incidents occurred during the PTI’s 2024 protest, which he described as an “assault on Islamabad.”
The AG maintained that the individuals seen firing shells at Islamabad police personnel in the videos were not peaceful and added that Rangers officials were run over by a vehicle. He further noted that there was a legal framework governing public meetings and protests in the federal capital. Any person or political party intending to hold a protest was required to submit an application containing complete details so that the administration could make appropriate security arrangements, he said, adding the district magistrate had the authority to either grant or reject the request for permission.
The AG further argued that the government had the authority to declare any area a “red zone” and impose restrictions, including Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to maintain law and order. He maintained the PTI’s march had only two objectives: “release of a convicted prisoner and the removal of the government.” Both these objectives, he argued, were unconstitutional.
“If you are dissatisfied with the prime minister, go to Parliament and move a vote of no-confidence,” he said. “If you want to topple the government in the streets and public squares, then do not speak of the rule of law,” he added.
He further questioned the PTI’s claim of marching to strengthen the judiciary, arguing an increase in litigation showed growing public confidence in the courts. He maintained none of the available evidence suggested the upcoming rally would remain peaceful.
The AG argued that the Islamabad administration did not have the “physical capacity to stop a massive crowd if the PTI brought its full resources” to the federal capital. “We can only make precautionary arrangements, such as imposing Section 144 and placing containers,” he said. “We cannot fire upon our citizens; we cannot take their lives,” he said, adding preventive measures were necessary to ensure the situation does not spiral out of control.
The petitioner’s lawyer, meanwhile, pushed back against an earlier argument of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa advocate general, who had maintained the petition was premature as the protest had yet to take place. “My life and my children’s education are fundamental rights under the Constitution,” the counsel argued, questioning whether one could only approach court after they had suffered damage.
The lawyer also referred to speeches by Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi, who had declared he would bring millions of people to Islamabad. All this mobilization, he stressed, was for the release of a convicted prisoner.
“If millions of people arrive here, will the government direct this court to grant bail to the prisoner?” he asked. “Is such a thing possible? What would become of judicial independence?” he said, arguing protests cannot be held to secure “unconstitutional objectives.”
Near the end of the hearing, the court called KP Inspector General Zulfiqar Hameed to the rostrum and directed him to read out an affidavit submitted by him. The IHC CJ then questioned what measures the provincial police would take to prevent an “illegal protest.” The IG said he would act in accordance with the affidavit, including stopping any illegal activity if it occurs.