ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Monday observed sit-ins in the federal capital appeared to be unlawful as no permission was granted for these by the competent authority.
While hearing a petition of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Justice Athar Minallah of the IHC also extended the suspension of the order regarding imposition of Section 144 in Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT).
Justice Athar Minallah also directed the police to submit a report on the use of force since the marchers’ arrival in the federal capital. The court also heard Aabpara Traders Association President Ajmal Baloch’s petition against the sit-in of Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT).
During the hearing, the court directed Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) to keep minors away from the sit-ins and also observed that, prima facie, permission granted for protest in the red zone was unlawful.
Justice Athar said both PTI and PAT should keep the minors away from the hazardous environment of the sit-ins. The court observed that children cannot be exposed to the harmful environment at the sit-ins, so both the parties should voluntarily remove them from there.
The counsel for PAT contended that children were accompanying their parents. The judge remarked the act of parents brining their children to such a harmful environment was itself unlawful. “It is the duty of the court to protect the rights of minors as there are laws for the protection of children through guardian courts, so no judge can overlook this aspect at all,” he said.
On this occasion, PTI MNA Asad Umar assured the court of doing his best to comply with its directions to keep minors away. He added he would request the parents not to bring their kids to the sit-in.
Previously, the court had raised a question to lawyers from all the sides whether the prime minister and the interior minister was competent to grant permission for holding protest or a district magistrate had the authority in this respect. If the prime minister and the interior minister were not authorised to grant permission, under which law they publicly announced that protesters were allowed to protest at Constitution Avenue, the court had enquired.
Justice Minallah had said that if the prime minister and the interior minister had unlawfully allowed the protesters, the expenses that the national exchequer had borne due to the protest might be imposed on them. PTI and PAT would also have to explain whether they knew that the prime minister and the interior minister did not have the authority to accord permission and that they should have obtained permission from the district magistrate.
He further said that if this thing was proven, the cost that the national exchequer suffered would also be imposed on PTI and PAT.
On Monday, the IHC also observed that prima facie the permission granted to the parties for staging sit-ins in the red zone was unlawful. The district magistrate was the authorised person to allow the protest in the red zone, but he categorically denied he had given any such permission.
Justice Athar further observed that as per media record, the interior minister, on the advice of the prime minister, allowed the protesters and the court would have to look into the question whether the prime minister or any other minister was competent to grant such permission without involving the district magistrate.
The IHC once again observed that if it was proven that the permission granted to the protesters for holding sit-ins in the red zone was illegal, the prime minister would have to bear the cost.
The court also appointed three amicus curie (friends or assistants of the court), Babar Sattar, Ijaz Sandhu and Saad Rasool in addition to Yousaf Khosa who had been appointed on the last date of hearing.
Babar Sattar advocate maintained the prime minister and the federal ministers should be asked whether or not they permitted any protest. The court could not deal with a question which was political in nature, he also said.
Yousaf Khosa advocate held the court could examine whether the issues raised in the petition of Aabpara traders needed a judicial forum.
Justice Athar observed the political questions should have been put before the Parliament, but the court was there to protect fundamental rights of the citizens.
The judge pointed out that Article 16 of the Constitution says, “Every citizen shall have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of public order.” He added that as per this article the right of assembly was not absolute as it entailed certain restrictions to protect the rights of other citizens.
Later, the court adjourned the hearing till October 1 (Wednesday) with the direction that from that day the court would conduct the hearing of this matter on daily basis.