• Justice Azam asks whether chief minister can support march if formal approval not granted
• Punjab advocate general refers to casualties during previous protests
ISLAMABAD: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Advocate General Shah Faisal Utmankhel has questioned the maintainability of a petition before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against the PTI’s planned Sept 27 protest in the federal capital, arguing that the petitioner had not exhausted an available legal remedy.
The PTI has announced a nationwide protest to demand the release of party founder Imran Khan and mobilise people for the “supremacy of the Constitution”.
A citizen, Waqas Ahmed, filed the plea, arguing that it could disrupt routine life, traffic and business activities in the capital. A larger bench, headed by IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, is hearing the petition.
During Friday’s hearing, Mr Utmankhel argued that an appropriate remedy was available before the Islamabad chief commissioner and that the high court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution could not be invoked in the circumstances.
He also pointed out that the petition had been filed against a political party that had not been impleaded as a respondent, questioning why the PTI had not been made a party if the proceedings concerned its planned protest.
CJ Dogar asked whether the PTI was actually planning to undertake the march and whether the AG agreed with statements made by Chief Minister Sohail Afridi about it.
Mr Utmankhel replied that the advocate general’s office was concerned only with the CM’s official responsibilities and not his political narrative.
On the court’s directive, he read out the oath administered to the KP chief minister and argued that Mr Afridi had not violated it through his statements.
Referring to Article 5 of the Constitution, the chief justice asked whether the chief minister was constitutionally bound to remain loyal to the state. “CM Afridi is very much loyal to the state,” the AG said.
He reiterated that political statements by the chief minister did not fall within his office’s domain and suggested that the PTI and the chief minister should be impleaded as parties.
The KP chief secretary was then called to explain the provincial government’s position. He adopted a similar stance, saying political statements were dealt with at the party level. Asked whether the chief minister had issued instructions to government officials regarding the march, he assured the court that provincial officials would not be allowed to act beyond their constitutional limits.
CJ Dogar recalled that the court had previously been told that the planned march was intended to strengthen the judiciary and pointed out that the PTI had previously failed to comply with court directions regarding protest marches.
Justice Azam Khan, a bench member, asked whether the chief minister could announce or support a march and sit-in before formal approval had been granted.
Mr Utmankhel replied that such processions were organised by parties. He said Islamabad belonged to all provinces and could not be confined to its residents, arguing that a peaceful long march should not be stopped.
He also referred to statements by Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz and Adviser to the PM on Political Affairs Rana Sanaullah concerning the protest.
The chief justice questioned how the AG had learnt about TV statements when he had earlier said he did not watch TV. Mr Utmankhel replied that after the court referred to media reports during the previous hearing, he watched television programmes throughout the night.
He maintained that the sit-in was aimed at promoting the rule of law, supremacy of the Constitution and strengthening the judiciary. “We also want this, but you need not come to Islamabad for this; it (protest) can be held in the provinces,” CJ Dogar remarked.
The AG questioned whether citizens joining the protest would also be expelled from the capital.
The chief justice observed that the court could not function under pressure and was performing its responsibilities according to established legal criteria.
Punjab Advocate General Barrister Zaffarullah Khan argued that the IHC could issue directions concerning an action originating outside its territorial jurisdiction if it could affect the court’s jurisdiction. He said he supported civil liberties but noted that protesters in previous demonstrations had allegedly used weapons, resulting in casualties.
Sindh Advocate General Jawad Dero said the matter did not directly concern his province but assured the court that its directives would be implemented.
Balochistan Advocate General Adnan Basharat argued that large-scale protests could disrupt educational institutions, hospitals, roads and highways. He cited a 2019 SC judgement on the adverse impacts of mass processions and urged the court to declare that no political party, provincial government or political leadership could obstruct the smooth functioning of daily life.
The court adjourned further hearing until Sept 14 (Monday).
Published in Dawn, September 12th, 2026
