• In detailed verdict on PTI protest plea, IHC says no entity can be allowed to disrupt free movement
• Rejects KP objection to its jurisdiction
• Says case calls for balancing right to protest with freedom of movement
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court has ruled that any activity resulting in infringement of citizens’ fundamental rights amounts to a violation of the Constitution, warning that public office holders responsible for such violations would also be deemed to have breached their oath of office.
The ruling came in a detailed 37-page judgement on a petition concerning the proposed nationwide PTI protest towards Islamabad on Sept 27. The PTI had announced the march to demand the release of party founder Imran Khan and mobilise people for the supremacy of the Constitution.
Waqas Ahmed, a citizen, had challenged the planned move on the grounds that the protest could disrupt routine life, traffic and business activities in the federal capital.
A three-judge IHC bench headed by Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and comprising Justice Muhammad Asif and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan issued the judgement. The bench had announced its short order on Sept 14 after hearing arguments from both sides.
While disposing of the petition, the court directed that no political party, political leader, provincial government or public office holder could lawfully occupy roads, highways, interchanges, toll plazas, buildings or similar public places within, or leading to or from, Islamabad in a manner that obstructed free movement or hindered trade, business, professions or access to medical and educational facilities.
The court described the case as requiring an “unusual degree of constitutional balance” between the right of political parties and citizens to assemble peacefully and express dissent, and the rights of other citizens to life, liberty, dignity, free movement, trade, business, property, and access to hospitals, educational institutions, courts and workplaces.
“The question is not whether a political party is entitled to protest. It plainly is, subject always to the Constitution and law,” the judgement observed. The court held that the right to peaceful assembly could not be exercised in a manner that infringed the fundamental rights of other citizens.
A key objection raised by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general concerned the territorial jurisdiction of the IHC over provincial authorities functioning outside Islamabad. Rejecting the objection, the court held that Article 199(1)(c) empowered a high court to issue directives where a governmental power or function was being exercised “in, or in relation to” territory within its jurisdiction. The court clarified, however, that the provision did not confer general supervisory jurisdiction over another province.
The bench observed that where executive action or inaction was likely to infringe the fundamental rights of citizens within Islamabad, the court was under a “bounden duty” to assume jurisdiction under Article 199(1)(c).
The court also rejected the objection that the petition was not maintainable because KP Chief Minister Sohail Afridi had not been impleaded as a respondent. It noted that the KP advocate general was representing both the provincial government and the chief minister.
The court further rejected the argument that the petitioner had an adequate alternate remedy under the Peaceful Assembly and Public Order Act, 2024.
Published in Dawn, September 19th, 2026
