The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday dismissed a plea filed by PTI leader Asad Umar challenging the imposition of Section 144 in the capital, stating that decisions regarding the handling of rallies were taken by the executive authorities and a court was not equipped to substitute their assessments.

Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code restricts the assembly of gatherings exceeding four persons. According to a September 25 report by Dawn, police and administration officers confirmed that section 144 remained imposed in the capital.

Umar had filed a plea in the IHC contending that the move should be declared “ultra vires to the express provisions of the Constitution”. It comes amid anticipation of PTI chief Imran Khan giving a call for a protest march towards that federal capital in a quest for what the party describes as “Haqiqi Azadi” (true freedom) and the government planning measures to tackle the march.

IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah took up the petition today and dismissed it for being “meritless”.

The court order, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, stated that no political party or group of persons could claim the right to hold rallies, protests or other assemblies in disregard to the principles and law highlighted by the apex court.

“The power conferred under section 144 of Cr.P.C. is meant to be exercised solely in public interest. An unregulated rally, protest or assembly definitely offends the guaranteed rights of the citizens who are not associated therewith.

“It is a constitutional obligation of the executive authorities to protect the rights of the public while considering a request by a group or political party to hold a rally or to organize protest or assembly,” it said.

The order stated that PTI had a significant membership in both houses and had an “adequate remedy by way of tabling a Bill regarding the repeal of section 144 of Cr.P.C”.

“In case the petitioners intend to take out a rally, or to organise a protest or assembly, then they are advised to approach the competent authority for seeking permission in accordance with the principles and law enunciated by the august Supreme Court,” the IHC added.

The hearing

At the outset of the hearing today, Justice Minallah asked how the imposition of Section 144 affected Umar. “Did anyone stop the petition, Asad Umar, from seeking permission for a peaceful protest?”

Umar’s counsel, Babar Awan, told the court Umar was a PTI leader and that his party had been engaged in political activities.

During the hearing, the IHC noted that in the “dharna case” the Supreme Court had ruled that permission had to be sought for a peaceful protest.

He further stated, “There is this party’s (PTI) government in two provinces. Has Section 144 never been imposed there?” He added, “During the PTI’s tenure, was Section 144 never imposed in Islamabad?”

Justice Minallah said the executive had to maintain peace and deal with the matters of law and order, in which the court would never interfere.

The IHC CJ reserved the judgement on the maintainability of Umar’s plea.

The plea

In his plea, Umar contended that Section 144 was a “reflection of colonial legacy” and should be declared ultra vires to the Constitution and fundamental rights guaranteed under it.

He further prayed that the issuance of notifications “under garb of provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, imposing continuous restrictions of more than two months be declared void, Ab-anition, illegal, unlawful against the express provisions of Article 4, 8, 10-A, 15, 16 and 17 of the Constitution”.