ISLAMABAD - Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) proposed 16 questions instead of replying to the Lahore High Court Bar Association's (LHCBA) petition for the determination of Supreme Court's jurisdiction and the scope of fundamental rights of assembly in accordance with the constitution.

Barrister Yousaf Khosa on behalf of PTI submitted whether the Supreme Court has got the jurisdiction to grant the constitution petition 74/2014 in terms of article 184(3) read with article 199 of the constitution. Does the definition of 'person' provided in article 199 (5) read with article 184(3) of the constitution include a political party duly registered under laws, particularly in terms of a direction by the Supreme Court to such a political party for its compliance?

The PTI's response came a day after the Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid) filed its reply in the court, saying the political parties should resolve the current dispute themselves. Both PTI and Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) have been holding sit-ins in the federal capital since August 14.

The PTI questioned whether any judgment could be passed by this court to direct or regulate a political gathering (sit-in) with retrospective effect. What does the word 'sit-in' mean in the context of the existing constitutional petition 74/2014? How should a political sit-in be regulated in the future i.e. by way of the judgement of this court or enactment of legislation pertaining to the same; balancing the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution; state's role in the regulation of sit-in; and use of force by the police or any other law enforcement agencies of the state?

Is there at present any pertinent legislation which regulates 'sit-in' in Pakistan? What is the scope of article 16 of constitution in respect of such sit-in? What does amount to a reasonable restriction imposed by the law? What would fall under the remit of 'interest of public order'?

Where does the test lie for determining the extent of the reasonableness of the restrictions and what actions would be in the interest of the public order? What is the redressal mechanism for citizens who are of the view that they have been deprived of their rights to assembly as provided under the constitution and deprived unlawfully by the state?

What is the scope of article 19 of the constitution? What is the redressal mechanism available against those who have breached constitutional right guaranteed under article 19?

What are the responsibilities and obligations of the government against which such a political sit-in is being staged? Who and how will regulate the actions of the government against which such a sit-in is to be or being exercised?

What is the balance among various fundamental rights guaranteed by articles 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the constitution read with article 4 and 5 of the constitution and whether the state machinery can curb one right on the pretext of protecting the other?