IHC Forms Larger Bench Over PTI’s Sept 27 Protest

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday decided to form a larger bench to hear a petition against the PTI’s planned Sept 27 protest, saying the matter was sensitive and could have constitutional implications.

The court also issued notices to the police chiefs of all four provinces and other officials. They have been asked to appear at the next hearing on Sept 10.

The PTI has announced a nationwide protest on Sept 27, demanding the release of party founder Imran Khan and calling for the supremacy of the Constitution.

A citizen, Waqas Ahmed, challenged the planned protest in the IHC. He argued that the demonstration could disrupt daily life, traffic and business activities in Islamabad.

Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar heard the petition. The petitioner’s lawyer, Akhtar Chheena, told the court that his client was a trader in Islamabad and would be “directly affected” by the protest.

When the chief justice asked how the petitioner would be affected, the lawyer said the protest had been announced by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi, who planned to lead the demonstration in Islamabad.

The lawyer said the protest could affect businesses and normal life in the capital.

He also referred to newspaper reports about statements by the KP chief minister and said several cases against PTI leaders were already pending in courts.

“All these cases have to be decided according to law,” the lawyer said. He argued that allowing street protests to pressure courts for relief in one case could encourage others with pending cases to use similar methods.

The lawyer also raised concerns about a possible attack on Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail, where Imran Khan is imprisoned. He questioned whether an incident similar to the May 9, 2023 attack at the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi could happen.

He described the planned protest as “illegal” and referred to the PTI’s November 2024 protest.

During the November 26 protests, more than 10,000 PTI supporters entered Islamabad despite restrictions on public gatherings. They clashed with security forces in the city’s Red Zone before the PTI leadership withdrew.

Lawyer Chheena said casualties were also reported during the incident. He said three Rangers personnel were killed and questioned how this happened if the protesters were unarmed.

Citing media reports, he said the protest caused losses of around Rs240 million. He argued that political pressure “should not be used to get judicial relief”.

“The only purpose [of the Sept 27 protest] is to exert pressure and obtain relief,” the lawyer alleged.

He said the Constitution allowed the government to impose “lawful restrictions” on protests.

The lawyer also referred to the laws governing protests in Islamabad and questioned whether protesters would enter the capital with government machinery.

Chief Justice Dogar asked again whether the protesters would have the KP government’s machinery with them.

The lawyer claimed they would and presented a letter dated November 21, 2024, issued by the Ministry of Interior. He alleged that government machinery had also been used during the 2024 protest despite the federal government’s communication.

He further said that no application had so far been submitted to the Islamabad district magistrate for permission to hold the planned protest.

The lawyer also said Imran Khan was a convicted prisoner and that two cases involving him were pending before the IHC. He referred to orders in the £190m Al-Qadir Trust case and said the court had repeatedly asked Imran’s lawyer to present arguments in the appeal against his conviction, but the arguments had not been completed.

“This is his position in a legal matter before this court,” the lawyer said.

He then questioned whether a court could be pressured to suspend a sentence because millions of people supported the convicted person.

“Can the government direct the court to suspend the sentence in an appeal? Is this possible?” the lawyer asked, adding that the Constitution protected the independence of the judiciary.

The lawyer also referred to political developments in other provinces and said a march had taken place in Sindh, while KP authorities had announced that facilities would be provided to protesters.

He said courts could issue guidelines for protests, but such arrangements should not be used to provide relief to people facing criminal cases.

After hearing the initial arguments, Chief Justice Dogar said the matter was sensitive and had constitutional implications.

The IHC therefore decided to form a larger bench to hear the petition. Notices were issued to the relevant parties, including the attorney general for Pakistan, chief secretaries and inspectors general of all four provinces, the Islamabad chief commissioner, deputy commissioner and Islamabad IG.

The court summoned these officials in their personal capacity and directed the advocates general of the four provinces and Islamabad to appear at the next hearing on September 10.