The Peshawar High Court has reserved its judgment on a petition challenging the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government’s involvement in the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) protest scheduled for November 24 in Islamabad.
The case was heard by a bench consisting of Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Wiqar Ahmad, who listened to the arguments presented by provincial advocate general Shah Faisal Uthmankhel and the petitioner’s legal representatives, Qazi Babar Irshad and Afroze Ahmad.
The petition, filed by Peshawar resident Jalaluddin, seeks to prevent the provincial government from participating in PTI’s protest, arguing that the government’s involvement is unlawful and violates fundamental rights. The petitioner’s legal team contends that the provincial government is neglecting its duties towards the people by engaging in street protests and political marches, and is misusing state resources, such as vehicles and machinery, for the PTI protest. They also raised concerns about the involvement of police and other officials in the protest, which they argue could exacerbate security issues.
In response, AG Uthmankhel opposed the petition, asserting that it was not maintainable and should be dismissed. He emphasized that citizens have the constitutional right to peacefully protest, and denied that the provincial government had directed the use of government resources for the protest. He further highlighted the role of the federal government in placing barriers on roads to prevent the protestors from exercising their right to demonstrate.
The petitioner’s lawyers argued that during previous protests, the provincial government had sent vehicles and machinery from departments such as Rescue 1122, which were impounded, affecting emergency response efforts, including a fire in Hayatabad. They demanded assurances that the government would not repeat such actions and cause disruption to public life.
The bench noted that while the government claimed that people, not the state, would participate in the protest, it raised concerns over the use of state resources in the process. The court has reserved its decision, with further proceedings pending.
