JUI-F Azadi March challenged in IHC

Petitioner says protesters should be limited to allocated place


​ Our Correspondent October 08, 2019
Maulana Fazlur Rehman. PHOTO: FILE

ISLAMABAD: Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F’s) Azadi March and proposed sit-in against the government on Monday was challenged in the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

Petitioner Hafiz Ahtesham, a resident of Islamabad, said that the IHC had fixed a place for protests and sit-ins in the federal capital.

He prayed the court the protesters should be limited to the allocated place as it could affect the routine life of the local residents of the federal capital.

The petitioner had nominated the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Education, PEMRA, ICT Administration and JUI-F chief Fazlur Rehman as respondents in the case.

Meanwhile, IHC sought a reply from respondents in a petition challenging the eligibility criteria for the post of chairman National Commission of Human Rights (NCHR).

Fazl threatens to shut down entire country if ‘Azadi March’ obstructed

The petitioner stated in his plea that an advertisement had been issued in print media on September 22, for appointment on the top slot of NCHR.

Petitioner's lawyer Syed Khawar Naveed pleaded that the age limit for the said post could not be fixed under the Human Rights Act 2012.

He prayed the court to issue stay order against the recruitment process and dismiss the age limit mentioned for the post.

The court sought a reply from the law ministry and adjourned the hearing of the case.

The IHC also suspended the notification for a significant increase in property tax and served notices to Capital Development Authority (CDA) and Municipal Corporation Islamabad (MCI).

Justice Mohsin Akhter Kiyani conducted the hearing on a petition moved by Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) Naib Amir Muhammad Aslam.

The petitioner's counsel pleaded before the bench that the MCI had increased 200% property tax while misusing its powers.

He prayed the court to turn down the notification regarding the rise in property tax.

After hearing initial arguments, the bench suspended the notification and sought a reply form the MCI and CDA within two weeks.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ