Protest rights subject to limits: Supreme Court

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court refused to intervene in political matters on Thursday, dismissing a petition by a senator of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-F opposing the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf’s long march.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Ayesha A. Malik, dismissed the petition filed by JUI-F Senator Kamran Murtaza for being infructuous.

The court showed restraint from interfering in the political nature of matters and held that the executive has unlimited powers to deal with matters involving law and order and disruption of public routine life.

Kamran Murtaza had filed a petition in the apex court, claiming that PTI Chairman Imran Khan seems to be on a collision course with the institutions of Pakistan as he is once again carrying out a long march on the federal capital.

He had prayed to the apex court to ensure the basic rights of people were not violated during the long march, in addition to praying for the issue of directives to the Islamabad Capital Territory and provincial authorities not to allow long marchers to continue their protest for an indefinite period.

During the hearing on Thursday, Kamran Murtaza, the JUI-F Senator and petitioner, stated before the court that the PTI leadership has begun its long march from Punjab and it will arrive in the federal capital by Friday or Saturday, according to Fawad Chaudhry.

He submitted that the routine life of the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad may be disturbed through this march, adding that although holding a protest march is a constitutional right of the PTI, it should be ensured that the rights of common people should not be affected as well.

Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial said that holding the long march is a political issue that could be resolved politically.

“We are exercising judicial restraint from interfering in political matters; hence, it would be better for political issues to be resolved through political means rather than indulging the court to intervene,” the chief justice remarked.

The chief justice said that by interfering in such matters, the court could face a difficult situation, adding that the right to protest is not unlimited, it is subject to the parameters set by the Constitution.

“Prima facie, it would be premature to intervene in the matter,” the chief justice said, adding that they preferred law and order over the unrest.

The chief justice said they didn’t want to pass such an order that could not be implemented in letter and spirit.

Justice Ayesha A. Malik asked the petitioner if the government had formulated any mechanism for regulating the protest marches. Similarly, Justice Athar Minallah said that the court could only intervene in unusual circumstances.

“Why does the judiciary intervene when the executive is bound to handle such a situation?” Justice Athar Minallah asked the JUI-F senator.

“But the situation got worse as one person lost his life during the PTI march in Punjab,” Kamran Murtaza replied, but Justice Athar Minallah asked the petitioner if he thought that the administration was so weak that it could not handle the long march.

Kamran Murtaza, however, replied it appears that the administration has failed to control the situation.

“Do you want the court to play the role of a deputy commissioner?” Justice Athar Minallah told the petitioner

“You are a senator, and you could play a constructive role in strengthening the parliament,” Justice Athar Minallah told the petitioner.

Kamran Murtaza, however, submitted that he approached the court in a personal capacity.

But how can we believe that you’re here in a personal capacity even though you are also a part of the coalition government, Justice Athar Minallah asked the petitioner.

The judge said it seems that the administration cannot control the situation, for which he opted to approach the court.

Kamran Murtaza submitted that due to the long march, the whole province has become paralysed, to which Justice Athar Minallah said that if anybody violates a law, the executive is there with massive powers to tackle the situation.

“Will the court’s intervention not weaken the executive and parliament?” Justice Minallah questioned the petitioner.

Justice Ayesha A Malik asked the petitioner to approach the executive to play its constitutional role.

The judge noted that the PTI’s long march had been going on for several days and asked the petitioner if he had approached the executive as well as about the administration’s negligence.

Justice Ayesha said that everyday demonstrations are being held in the federal capital and in front of the parliament, too, and asked the petitioner if he had also moved the court against other protests.

“Why do you seek the court’s intervention against a specific party over its long march?” Justice Ayesha A. Malik asked Kamran Murtaza.

The judge reminded the petitioner that a contempt proceeding against the PTI leadership was also pending before the larger bench of this court and that the respondents had submitted their replies assuring the court that they would be held accountable if they violated the law.

“So still you want the court’s intervention even though a larger bench of this court is already hearing the same matter,” Justice Ayesha A. Malik told the petitioner.

Similarly, Justice Athar Minallah also told the petitioner that a similar matter was also pending before the learned Islamabad High Court.

During the hearing, the chief justice asked if the government has decided on the allocation of space for the long march in Islamabad. The additional attorney-general told the court that the Islamabad administration had asked the PTI leadership to hold the protest at Rawat, adding that the party leadership had sought an affidavit from the leadership, which had not yet been filed.

The chief justice said that the court will intervene when there was fear of a clear violation of the Constitution. The chief justice added that the other side might also have its stance on the violations.

The additional attorney-general, however, submitted that they wanted the court’s intervention to maintain law and order, adding that the federal government, by invoking Article 149 of the Constitution, also wrote a letter to the Punjab government on Nov 5.

“Do you want to say that the situation has gotten out of control of the executive?” Justice Athar Minallah asked the law officer, adding that the state has the authority to deal with such matters.

Justice Ayesha A. Malik asked the law officer how the Supreme Court could intervene in the executive domain if the federal government did not know how to fulfil its constitutional obligations.

The chief justice asked the petitioner if he had cited an audio leak in his petition about a conversation about bringing weapons to the federal capital.

The chief justice said that whether the video is real or not, there is a chance that the law and order may be affected. He said that earlier, the PTI leadership had approached the administration for the allocation of space at H-9 for the May 25 rally, and when the local administration declined the request, the court intervened.

Meanwhile, the court dismissed the petition for being infructuous and held that if the situation gets worse, the court could be approached.

Meanwhile, the Islamabad High Court said Thursday that no one had the right to stage a sit-in on the motorway, disrupting commercial as well as passenger transport.

IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq took up the local businessmen’s request against the PTI protest which they argued would cause the federal capital to come to a halt.

During the hearing, Justice Farooq said those who wanted to set up a protest rally had a right to do it, but without violating the basic rights of ordinary citizens. “However, no one has the right to announce a sit-in on the motorway and then block it,” the judge said.

The petitioner’s counsel said that the containers parked on the roads were causing difficulties for commuters.

Islamabad Advocate-General Barrister Jahangir Jadoon said that PTI’s application for obtaining an NoC for the sit-in and rally was also pending and suggested that it would be appropriate to hear both these petitions together.

Additional Attorney-General Munawar Iqbal Duggal said he had written to the law ministry for a legal opinion.

The IHC chief justice said that action should be taken in such matters immediately. The petitioner’s counsel said that orders should be issued to ensure the flow of traffic on highways and motorways.

CJ Farooq said as the Federation was in control of highways and motorways, it could give directions in this regard and if roads and motorways were closed, trade would also be affected. He said no one had the right to occupy the motorway. The IHC CJ said Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui had ruled in the Dharna case that all rallies would be held in the Parade Ground.

“Foreigners also live in Islamabad and diplomatic movement also gets affected because of these protest rallies,” Justice Farooq said.

After clubbing traders’ petition against the possible closure of roads because of the PTI protest with the party’s plea seeking an NoC for the sit-in and rally, the court adjourned the hearing until Friday.