PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Friday reserved its verdict order about a petition against the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government’s decision to participate in the PTI’s Nov 24 protest in Islamabad.

The development came after a bench comprising Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Wiqar Ahmad heard arguments by provincial advocate general Shah Faisal Uthmankhel and the petitioner’s lawyers, Qazi Babar Irshad and Afroze Ahmad.

In the petition, Peshawar resident Jalaluddin requested the court to restrain the provincial government from participating in the PTI’s protest by declaring its announcement about it illegal and against the basic fundamental rights of the people.

AG Shah Faisal Uthmankhel opposed the petition, insisting that it is not maintainable and should be dismissed.

AG insists petition should be rejected as it is non-maintainable

He added that people couldn’t be stopped from exercising their fundamental right to peaceful protest.

Lawyers for the petitioner Qazi Babar Irshad and Afroze Ahmad argued that the provincial government had miserably failed to do its job to serve the people who elected it as it was busy with street protests and marches on Islamabad.

They added that the provincial government was illegally using its resources, including vehicles and heavy machinery, for the PTI’s protest.

The counsel claimed that the provincial government had also asked officials, including police, to join the march on Islamabad, triggering fears for a security situation.

When the bench asked about the stand of the provincial government on the matter, the AG said that neither the government had issued any directives for the use of its machinery for the Nov 24 protest nor had the chief secretary ordered the provision of vehicles and heavy machinery for the purpose.

The petitioner’s lawyers insisted that during last month’s protest in Islamabad, the government took vehicles and machinery of Rescue 1122 and other departments, including ambulances, fire engines and cranes, along and most of them were impounded in Punjab and the federal capital.

They said that as vehicles and machinery were seized, a major fire that broke out in a factory in Hayatabad Industrial Estate afterwards couldn’t be extinguished in time.

The counsel said that the petitioner wouldn’t have any objection if the government promised not to close roads and use its machinery for the protest.

They insisted that during previous protests, Peshawar-Islamabad Motorway and other major roads remained closed for many days, affecting people and businesses.

The bench wondered that if the government claimed that people and not it would participate in the protest, then how the court could stop residents from doing so.

The AG contended that the relief sought by the petitioner should have been directed to the federal government as major roads were closed by the latter and not the provincial government.

Mr Uthmankhel pointed out that 700-800 containers had been placed on the roads by the federal government to stop people from exercising their constitutional right to peacefully protest in Islamabad.

“We have always staged peaceful rallies, but still the federal government is stopping us from exercising this right by force,” he said.

The AG claimed that during last month’s protest in Islamabad, the local police chief along with personnel attacked KP House and damaged property and vehicles, and even an ambulance accompanying the chief minister’s convoy was seized.

The bench observed that ambulances often accompanied the chief minister’s convoy, but taking heavy machinery along a procession should be avoided.

The AG pointed out that the chief secretary also issued a notification prohibiting the use of state machinery, including finances and personnel, in the PTI’s protest.

During the hearing, the AG and lawyers for the petitioner had heated exchanges, prompting the court to stop them from crosstalk.

Published in Dawn, November 23rd, 2024