Another deadline: Top court directs PTI, PAT to vacate Constitution Avenue
A day after Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) refused to clear out their sit-ins on Constitution Avenue, the Supreme Court (SC) set another 24-hour deadline for both parties to vacate their camps, whose presence has restricted public access to the court.
The extension in deadline came from a five-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk, which was hearing a set of petitions filed by bar associations against the sit-ins staged by Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri in the heart of Islamabad.
The petitions contend that protesters were breaching the rights of the common citizen as enshrined in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure freedom of movement and right of assembly.
During Wednesday’s hearing, which comes a day after both parties refused to budge from their positions outside parliament, the court directed the registrar, attorney general, attorneys for PTI and PAT and petitioners to visit Constitution Avenue in order to ensure free movement on one side of the road which has been blocked for all kinds of traffic since both parties led their supporters into the heavily fortified red zone.
The bench also ordered that lawyers representing the two parties should review the situation and submit a final report to the court in this regard on Thursday (today).
Weighing in on the matter, Justice Mulk observed that though the respondents (PAT and PTI) are claiming that one lane of the road has been cleared for free movement, the situation on-ground was different, with obstructions placed on the roads and lawyers, litigants and court staff being checked by private individuals.
Irked by the unusual blockade, the judge questioned PAT’s attorney Ali Zafar if the party workers were in control of their leadership.
Responding to the judge’s query, PAT’s attorney said fourteen people were killed and 80 injured in the Model Town incident. He said that relatives of these people including PAT workers were protesting against these killings and they refuse to step back. However, he assured the court of smooth flow of traffic on Constitution Avenue.
Similarly, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa said that this is not the case of free movement on Constitutional Avenue but one of ‘adherence to Constitution’ as well as ‘protection of democracy’.
“The court’s main focus is to protect the Constitution, as we have already passed an order for restraining state institutions from taking any extra-constitutional steps.” Justice Khosa said.
“For God’s sake save the constitution, it is a big blessing”, Justice Mian Saqib Nisar said while addressing counsels for both parties. He also expressed disappointment over the PAT chief’s statement, wherein he ‘cursed’ democracy.
Detaching the court from the political logjam in the country, Justice Saqib said “We don’t want the judiciary to intervene in political matters and there should be a political solution for the ongoing unrest.”
Terming the marches as a dangerous precedent, Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali said that this trend will lead to chaos and civil unrest in the country.
During the proceedings, counsels for both parties contended that the government had placed containers around the protest site which was causing hardship for the people.
However, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja defended the placement of containers on roads by the government for security reasons. The judge said that no one can control a mob and freedom of movement is not absolute.
He said the Constitution was not being adhered to and the political situation was apparently leading to anarchy. “It’s our responsibility to abide by the Constitution and provide justice to the people but the judges face extreme difficulties in reaching the court because of the protests,” he added.
At this point, the chief justice remarked that the judges would commute to court through Constitution Avenue route on Thursday. Subsequently, hearing of the case was adjourned till Thursday (today).
Published in The Express Tribune, August 28th, 2014.
COMMENTS (1)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
I heard someone say today: “I don’t like the precedent this march is setting, anyone can come and march on the capital and demand resignations”. I simply could not believe. Have we had a dearth of precedents being set in the past? Of any nature? I’m not even going to mention ex-CJ’s protests and lawyers movements, how about Martial Laws, PCOs and NROs? . Does the precedent only matter when the jobs of journalists, judges and bureaucrats are at stake? Wait a minute, how about the precedent set by the current PM via rigging? Are we happy for any mafia in the future to take control of the judges and thoroughly and unconstitutionally rig the elections? What about that precedent? . The precedent for rigging elections in Pakistan has already been set, and after that, we don’t have to worry about any other precedent. Just because someone comes and occupies the PM house doesn't make him a protector of democracy or a saviour of the system. He is just one man. and he was not elected. Has any newspaper written about that precedent? . What about the precedent these courts just set by protecting a convicted PM over allegations of election rigging? Care to talk about that precedent our esteemed courts?