The court had directed the said two officials to furnish reports that why Faizabad clearance operation failed and who provided support to protesters with lethal weapons, teargas and gasmasks as well. Reports were submitted in sealed envelopes.
During Monday’s proceedings, the IHC inquired from the AGP that what was the stance of the federal government about the agreement signed with protesters. The AGP sought time to submit reply. "When confronted (AGP) with the contents of agreement arrived at between the protesters of sit-in and the government of Pakistan, the learned attorney general submits that in order to make any statement about the same, he may be granted some time so that matter may be taken up with the relevant quarters to examine the constitutionality and legality of this agreement," the court order said. The AGP further said that since issues of these petitions pending before the IHC are directly or indirectly sub judice before the Supreme Court in suo moto case number 7, therefore, propriety demands that till the passing of final judgment, no further proceedings may be conducted regarding this matter. The AGP also produced a copy of the apex court order dated November 30. The IHC bench noted, "Order passed by the august Supreme Court clearly suggests that although some issues raised through these petitions do not find mention in order of the Supreme Court, however, in utter respect and great reverence to the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court, it would be appropriate that till final decision by Supreme Court, no substantive order may be passed by this court."
Justice Siddiqui said the protesters burnt and demolished public property. He observed that this is by no means an agreement rather a list of demand by the protesters that have been signed in the presence of Army officers. “I myself am an Aashiq-e-Rasool (Peace Be Upon Him) but another school of thought could label me 'Gustakh' as I don't kiss the thumb nails.”
The AGP said that use of religion for personal gains is also blasphemy or Gustakhi. Justice Siddiqui said that you also have to see how the protesters had been committing blasphemy during their stay at Faizabad. Justice Siddiqui expressed astonishment that they were committing blasphemy and the state surrendered before them.
At this, the AGP submitted that the state did not surrender, but the agreement was signed just to restore peace. Expressing astonishment over the withdrawal of FIRs registered against the protesters, Justice Siddiqui said how the federal government could withdraw FIRs against the violent protestors unilaterally? He said the protestors thrashed the police officials mercilessly and had there been khaki uniform instead of blue, he situation would have been entirely different. The judge questioned that wasn't it right of the policemen to forgive the leadership of sit-in or it was other way around? He said that FIRs could only be withdrawn against the leadership of Faizabad sit-in if injured policemen forgive them.
The IHC bench asked the AGP to apprise the court about the losses occurred due to the sit-in and who was responsible for damaging public property. The AGP replied that the government is already working on this and a report would be submitted to the court by next date of hearing.
The court suggested two options to the attorney general; one, that so-called agreement may be referred to joint session of the Parliament for its appreciation, joint statement and to weigh it, on the touchstone of the Constitution and law of the land, second, to be placed before the federal cabinet including mediators, for same purpose. Next hearing of this matter would be on January 12, 2018.