LAHORE - The Lahore High Court yesterday sought reply from Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf Chairman Imran Khan and the federal government in a petition seeking action against him over his alleged hateful speeches against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Justice Shahid Waheed of the Lahore High Court took up the petition and adjourned further hearing until June 15.

Atif Sattar, a local resident filed this petition through his counsel A K Dogar and submitted that Imran Khan was making hateful speeches and also demanding PM resignation, which was violation of the Constitution.

He said that to ask PM to step-down was violation of articles 5, 7 & 90 of the Constitution. He pointed out that on August 13, 2014, a full bench of the LHC had already noticed to PTI when it with collaboration with PAT was on its way to hold long march and a sit-in at Islamabad. 

He stated that in the recent past when two offshore companies had been unearthed in the name of PM, Imran Khan demanded him to step down and alleged that he had lost his moral justification to stay in office.

Referring a judgment in Benazir Bhutto case, counsel said that the apex court had held, `Public order is an elemental need in any organized society, and no association can flourish in a state of disorder. In Cantwall v Connecticut (1940) 310 US 296 at page 308, it was held by American Supreme Court that the offence known as breech of the peace embraces a great variety of conduct destroying or menacing public order and tranquility. It includes not only violent acts but words likely to produce violence in others.

No one would have the hardihood to suggest that the principle of freedom of speech sanctions incitement to riot, when clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order appears, the power of the state to prevent or punish is obvious’.

Dogar said that it was self-evident from a cursory glance at the observation of the Supreme Court handed down in an 11-member bench that anyone who causes clear danger, riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets must be restrained and prevented from such activity and state has the power to prevent or punish which is so obvious.

He said that under Article 17 (2) it is the duty of the federal government to declare that a political party had been formed or is operating in a manner prejudicial to the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan and within fifteen days of such declaration, refer the matter to the Supreme Court whose decision on such reference shall be final, therefore, no further comment on this aspect of the case lest it may cause prejudice to any of the parties, is called for.

He requested to order the federal government to enforce Article 17 (2) read with Article 90 (1), Article 95, Oath under schedule III, Article 5 (2) and Article 7 of the Constitution, 1973 for a direction to declare Imran Khan as acting against provisions of the Constitution.

He also requested to order the federal government to declare Imran Khan guilty of inciting of hatred among the public and to disturb peace, public order, sovereignty and integrity of the country refer the matter to the Supreme for final decision.