The District East deputy commissioner told Sindh High Court on Friday that due to an imminent threat to the life and property of public, the request of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf for holding a public meeting at the Mazar-e-Quaid could not be accepted at least for four weeks.
During hearing of a petition filed by the PTI’s general secretary seeking permission to hold a public gathering, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi inquired the provincial law officer about granting permission for the public meeting.
The DC submitted that the SSP East had said that there is an imminent threat to the life and property of the public as communicated in the threat alerts received over the recent terrorist attack in Karachi.
He said that permission for holding the public gathering could not be accorded at least for four weeks till the threat was neutralized and favourable reports were received. The petitioner’s counsel Ali Tahir submitted that recently the Central Muslim League held a public meeting on Shahra-e-Qaideen and another political party Jamaat-e-Islami was also holding its public meeting at the nearby Nishtar Park on April 28.
The court inquired the provincial law officer when the law and order situation would improve and the administration would allow the petitioner’s party to hold a public meeting. The law officer submitted that the administration was monitoring the situation and permission would be granted till the threat was neutralised.
The court after taking the reports of the DC on record directed the provincial government to submit a progress report with regard to security clearance and adjourned the hearing till May 6.
PTI General Secretary Ali Ahmed Palh said in the petition that the party wanted to hold a peaceful assembly at the Bagh-e-Jinnah on April 28, and they had written to the District East deputy commissioner for permission.
He added that despite receiving the application, the DC was yet to decide on it. The petitioner’s counsel, Ali Tahir, said the constitution of Pakistan enshrined the freedom of assembly as a fundamental right in the Article 16, and that this article guaranteed every citizen the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of public order. The high court was requested to declare that the petitioner and his party were entitled to the protection of the Article 16 and Article 17 of the Constitution, and direct the DC to decide on the application of the petitioner.