The Islamabad High Court on Monday ruled that no political party or public office holder has the authority to block roads in the federal capital, while disposing of a petition concerning PTI’s planned September 27 march with directions to federal and provincial authorities.
PTI announced last month that it would march towards Islamabad on September 27 to demand the release of party founder Imran Khan. Caravans from different parts of the country are expected to head towards the capital, while the party has also planned protests, shutdowns and demonstrations along major roads in cities including Lahore, Karachi, Hyderabad and Quetta.
The petition was filed by citizen Waqas Ahmed, who argued that the proposed protest and long march could disrupt his business activities in Islamabad. His lawyer also expressed concern over the possible use of government resources and referred to PTI’s previous attempt to enter the capital in 2024.
A larger IHC bench comprising Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Azam Khan and Justice Muhammad Asif directed provincial governments to ensure that public resources were not used for political marches, rallies or processions.
The court ordered chief ministers to prevent the use of government funds, vehicles, machinery, officers or other personnel for political demonstrations. It also ruled that no government employee could be compelled to participate in a protest, march or rally.
Chief secretaries were instructed to initiate departmental proceedings against officials who failed to comply with the court’s directions. Any government employee pressured to participate in political activity was directed to immediately report the matter to the relevant chief secretary, chief commissioner or inspector general of police.
The court further directed government officers to ensure that their subordinate staff did not join any march or protest heading towards Islamabad.
At the federal level, the Ministry of Interior and Islamabad administration were ordered to safeguard citizens’ constitutional rights. Provincial chief secretaries and police chiefs, as well as the federal interior secretary, Islamabad chief commissioner and Islamabad police chief, were directed to ensure implementation of the orders.
At an earlier hearing on September 11, the court had sought affidavits from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief secretary and inspector general of police confirming that provincial government machinery would not be used for the September 27 protest.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Advocate General Shah Faisal had questioned the IHC’s jurisdiction, arguing that the court’s authority was confined to Islamabad and did not extend to other provinces. The provincial chief secretary and police chief nevertheless submitted affidavits assuring the court that state resources would not be used for protests.
During the proceedings, Chief Justice Dogar questioned Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Inspector General Zulfiqar Hamid about how police would respond to an unlawful protest. The chief justice said the undertaking should clearly state that illegal demonstrations would not be permitted and that protesters involved in unlawful activity would be dispersed. The police chief assured the court that illegal activities would be stopped.
The court also accepted an application from Islamabad Advocate General Naveed Malik seeking permission to show footage of PTI protests held in 2022 and 2024. The videos were subsequently played before the bench.
Malik told the court that Islamabad already had laws regulating public demonstrations. Organisers were required to apply for permission and provide details of their proposed protest so that appropriate security arrangements could be made.
He said a magistrate could reject an application and that demonstrations could not legally proceed without the required approval. The government also had the authority to designate areas as Red Zones.
The Islamabad advocate general argued that the proposed march appeared to pursue two objectives: securing the release of a convicted prisoner and removing the government. He maintained that there was no assurance that the rally would remain peaceful and described both demands as unconstitutional.
Responding to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general’s argument that the protest sought to strengthen the judiciary and uphold the rule of law, Malik said anyone seeking the release of a convicted prisoner should approach the courts. Similarly, he argued that those seeking to remove the prime minister should pursue a vote of no confidence through Parliament rather than attempt to change the government through street protests.
He also said the administration could take preventive measures, including imposing Section 144, but could not use lethal force against citizens. He stressed that preventive action was necessary before the situation deteriorated.
After hearing the arguments, the larger bench reserved its decision and subsequently disposed of the petition while issuing directions to federal and provincial authorities.
