IHC says political protests cannot infringe citizens’ fundamental rights ahead of PTI march
Islamabad High Court
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has ruled that any activity resulting in a violation of citizens’ fundamental rights would constitute a breach of the Constitution, warning that public office holders responsible for such violations would be liable for consequences under the Constitution and the law.
The ruling came as the PTI announced the September 27 Islamabad march to press for the release of Imran Khan. The party had been preparing a central convoy from K-P, with caravans from other parts of the country expected to join before proceeding towards the federal capital.
A larger bench comprising IHC Chief Justice Sardar Sarfaraz Dogar and Justices Azam Khan and Muhammad Asif made the observations in a 37-page detailed judgment on a petition filed by local trader Waqas Ahmed against the announced PTI long march towards Islamabad on Sept 27.
Read: IHC bars harassment, arrest of PTI leaders ahead of September 27 long march
The bench had announced its short order on Sept 14 after hearing arguments from Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Awan, Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman, the advocate generals of the four provinces and Islamabad, and counsel for the petitioner, Barrister Akhter Cheena.
The petitioner sought protection of citizens’ fundamental rights, including freedom of movement, dignity, business and property, arguing that political assembly was subject to reasonable restrictions.
The petitioner’s counsel had contended that the relief sought was preventive and neutral, and aimed at preserving constitutional rights rather than suppressing any political activity.
The court consequently rejected objections to the maintainability of the petition based on the 2024 law, observing that none of the provisions of the law prevented the petition from being brought before the high court.
“To the contrary, the provisions of the aforesaid Act have not been adhered to by the Chief Minister, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others who have declared their intention to march towards and lay siege to the ICT for purposes which are extraneous to the Constitution and the law,” the judgment said.
“Therefore, instant petition is held to be maintainable, even otherwise too,” it concluded.
Right to protest subject to law
The court made it clear that the right to protest was constitutionally protected but remained subject to the Constitution, law and reasonable restrictions.
“The controversy before us requires an unusual degree of constitutional balance,” the judgment said, noting that on one side stood the right of citizens and political parties to assemble peacefully, express political dissent and participate in democratic activity.
On the other side, it said, were the equally constitutional rights of citizens to life, liberty, dignity, free movement, lawful trade and business, property, and access to hospitals, educational institutions, courts and workplaces.
“Therefore, the question is not whether a political party is entitled to protest. It plainly is, subject always to the Constitution and law,” the court observed.
The bench said political parties had a constitutional right to peaceful assembly and political dissent, while citizens also enjoyed constitutional rights to life, liberty, dignity, freedom of movement and business.
It said a constitutional balance was therefore necessary between the right to political protest and the fundamental rights of citizens.
The question before the court, it added, was also the extent to which a high court could intervene in a matter concerning a political protest that had yet to take place.
The court observed that continuity of the normal functioning of constitutional institutions in Islamabad was of fundamental importance. Citizens, it said, had the right to access hospitals, educational institutions and courts.
The judgment noted that Article 15 of the Constitution guaranteed citizens the right to move freely throughout Pakistan, while Article 16 provided the right to assemble peacefully and without arms.
Restrictions on assembly could only be imposed under law and to the extent reasonably necessary in the public interest, it said.
Article 17, the court added, gave citizens the right to form associations and unions, while restrictions on freedom of assembly could be imposed under law in the interest of public order.
‘Not based on speculation’
The bench rejected the contention that the petition was based on a merely speculative apprehension of disruption.
“The material placed before us is substantially different from an entirely speculative apprehension,” it held.
The Islamabad advocate general had placed footage of PTI’s 2022 and 2024 protests before the court, arguing that the demonstrations could not be described as peaceful.
The court considered the material while determining whether the apprehension of disruption from the Sept 27 march was merely speculative.
The bench also referred to assurances given by the PTI regarding its march of May 25, 2022, and their alleged violations.
Read More: Naqvi warns of legal action against violators of IHC protest ruling
It regretted that assurances and court directions had repeatedly been disregarded, saying the party’s founding chairman himself had violated an assurance given before the Supreme Court.
The history of previous protests, the court observed, was relevant to determining whether the apprehension before it was speculative.
“The history has demonstrated the obvious conduct of the political party in disregarding not only the Court orders but also the assurances given by its leadership to remain peaceful during the assembly/sit-ins,” the judgment said.
The court noted that the high court had also issued a judgment concerning the November 2024 protest, but it was not implemented.
“The case before this court is not based on speculation,” it said, adding that there was a history of the political party disregarding judicial orders and assurances.
‘State must protect citizens’
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Faizabad Dharna case, the attorney general argued that it was the state’s duty to ensure that political protest did not degenerate into an obstruction of civic life.
He argued that the state must act cohesively to ensure protection of the constitutional rights of citizens within Islamabad.
The high court, while quoting the Supreme Court judgment, noted that prolonged blocking of roads prevented citizens from exercising their constitutional right to freedom of movement.
Preventing sick people from reaching hospitals could infringe their right to life, it said, while road blockades also affected students, litigants, businesses and daily-wage workers and could result in damage to property.
Read: Sept 27 protest fuels opposition unity drive
The court further held that public roads could not be converted indefinitely into sites for political protests.
“The constitutional right of assembly cannot be interpreted as a right of perpetual occupation of infrastructure which belongs equally to all citizens,” the judgment said.
The bench said the exercise of one constitutional right could not become a licence to infringe another citizen’s rights.
“Constitutional guarantees are thus to be construed harmoniously, so as to preserve the delicate equilibrium between individual liberty and the equal entitlement of others to the protection of their own fundamental rights,” it said.
March using state resources ‘unconstitutional’
The court held that government resources of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa had been used for political purposes during a previous march.
As a result of such marches, it said, it became impossible to ensure protection of the fundamental rights of Islamabad’s citizens.
The bench ruled that any aggression by a provincial unit against the federation, in the form of a march, rally, or procession, was unconstitutional and unlawful.
It further held that government funds, vehicles, machinery or officials could not be used for any political march towards Islamabad.
While peaceful protest was a constitutional right, an armed march or one conducted using government resources did not enjoy constitutional protection, the court said.
The court also issued detailed instructions to the chief secretaries and police chiefs of the provinces, as well as the federal interior secretary, chief commissioner and inspector general of police of Islamabad.
Officials were directed not to comply with any order compelling them to aid or facilitate a march, rally or procession leading towards Islamabad.
The court further ordered that no official should permit anyone to participate in a march towards Islamabad with the intention of obstructing or hindering free movement, trade, business, or commerce, or adversely affecting access to educational institutions, medical facilities, or the peaceful and lawful use of property.
‘Besieging capital not a constitutional right’
The court said disrupting citizens’ lives, businesses, education and freedom of movement to exert political pressure on Islamabad did not fall within the scope of the right to protest.
The right to hold a long march was subject to law, it said, adding that besieging the federal capital or suspending citizens’ rights was not a constitutional right.
The bench also set out the constitutional consequences for anyone whose activities resulted in violations of citizens’ fundamental rights.
“Any person, whether legal or natural, who undertakes any activity which results in violation of fundamental rights of the citizens within the ICT, shall be deemed to have violated the Constitution and shall be liable for the consequences stipulated under the law,” the judgment stated.
In one of its strongest observations, the court said the consequences would also extend to public office holders if their actions resulted in violations of citizens’ fundamental rights.
Also Read: PTI finalises strategy for Sept 27 march
“Any public office holder, who undertakes any activity which results in violation of fundamental rights of the citizens within the ICT, shall be deemed to have violated the Constitution and his/her oath of office under the Constitution and shall be liable for the consequences stipulated under the Constitution and the law.”
The bench concluded that a long march remained subject to constitutional and legal restrictions, and that occupation of public infrastructure or suspension of citizens’ fundamental rights could not itself be claimed as a constitutional right.
The court disposed of the petition with directions.
PTI gears up for September 27
The PTI last month announced a September 27 march in Islamabad to demand the release of Imran Khan, with caravans from across the country expected to converge on the federal capital. The party also planned protests, shutdowns and demonstrations along major highways in cities, including Lahore, Karachi, Hyderabad and Quetta.
Under a preliminary strategy announced in August, the party planned to bring workers from across the country to K-P at least five days before the march. The main convoy was expected to remain at the Punjab-Khyber Pakhtunkhwa border for two to three days before moving towards Islamabad once other caravans had assembled.
The PTI had also planned protests and shutdowns in several major cities, including Lahore, Karachi, Hyderabad and Quetta, as well as demonstrations along important national highways.
The PTI’s August plan also included a funding and mobilisation structure for the protest. A committee headed by party Secretary-General Salman Akram Raja was tasked with overseeing finances, while lawmakers were directed to mobilise supporters in their constituencies.
The party had estimated that the first day of the march would cost around Rs450 million, with subsequent days expected to cost approximately Rs14.5 million each. It had also sought financial contributions from lawmakers and party figures to fund the campaign.