PTI's long march at odds with SC's Faizabad sit-in verdict?

As the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) gears up to march onto the federal capital again, amid arrests and complaints of harassment by party leaders and workers, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Faizabad sit-in case of 2017 has gained much significance.

The apex court’s three-year old judgment, penned by Justice Isa, had declared that the right of assembly could not be used to overthrow a 'lawful government'.

In 2017, the court had initiated suo motu action over the sit-in. The judgment was reserved in 2018 and announced on February 6, 2019.

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government as well as the security establishment had expressed reservations over the judgment following its announcement. A number of review petitions were also filed against it. These petitions are still pending in courts.

Amidst the current political turmoil, with the ousted PTI dead set on throwing over the current government and forcing it to announce early elections, the 43-page verdict has gained importance again.

“The right of assembly is recognized as a right to preserve the democratic order, but it cannot be used to overthrow a lawful government. Nor can the right of assembly be used to bring about a revolution or insurrection,” the judgment stated.

It further maintained that every citizen and political party has the right to assemble and protest, provided such assembly is peaceful and complies with the law, imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.

The 2019 ruling stated that the right to assemble and protest is circumscribed only to the extent that it does not infringe on the fundamental rights of others - including the right to free movement, to hold and enjoy property.

The court said protestors who obstruct people’s right to use roads and damage or destroy property must be proceeded against in accordance with the law and held accountable.

The judgment underscored that if any party propagates “hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the federal or provincial government” they commit the offence of sedition for which the punishment is imprisonment for life.

Read Bracing for PTI's wrath, govt fortifies capital

While the verdict noted that the Constitution does not specifically stipulate a right to protest, it also maintained that democracy recognizes such a right, and it is through democratic means that Pakistan was achieved.

“The people of the subcontinent acquired independence from British-colonial rule by the efforts of the All India Muslim League and the Indian National Congress; they peacefully protested, demonstrated, held meetings and expressed themselves through elections, as a consequence of which two independent countries, Pakistan and India, emerged. Our Constitution is moored in democracy,” read the statement.

The ruling said the right of assembly, freedom of association and freedom of speech cannot be exercised by infringing upon the fundamental rights of others. Without obtaining permission, public meetings cannot be held on roads.

The ruling added: “Nor can a road be used as a camping ground or to assemble on it indefinitely. Roads are for vehicular use and pavements are for the use of pedestrians to enable the travelling public to move freely, which is their fundamental right.”

The Supreme Court’s judgment furthered that those who break the law and know that there shall be no consequences, only emboldens others. “The citizens of Pakistan have reposed their trust in the state to ensure that their fundamental rights are upheld. Citizens must be kept safe, their properties protected and they should be allowed to move freely. The State however let them down.”

It upheld that the police and other law enforcement agencies are directed to develop standard plans and procedure with regard to how best to handle rallies and protests, and ensure that such plans and procedures are flexible enough to attend to different situations.

“It is clarified that though the making of such plans/procedures is not within the jurisdiction of this court. However, we expect that in the maintenance of law and order every effort will be taken to avoid causing injury and loss of life,” the ruling read.