SHC dismisses plea against Aurat March as bid to seek publicity

The Sindh High Court on Monday dismissed a petition of a woman against the holding of the annual Aurat March, a public rally held annually in different parts of the country to mark International Women’s Day by women rights organisations, observing that the petitioner does not disclose any valid cause of action in the petition and appears to be nothing more than an attempt to seek publicity.

Petitioner Bisma Noreen sought a ban on the Aurat March, claiming that slogans raised by participants are contrary to the sociocultural norms and mores. She submitted that participants in such marches had previously raised the slogan of “mera jism, meri marzi”, and argued that it was obscene.

A division bench, comprising Justice Chief Justice Ahmed Ali M Sheikh and Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed, observed that arguments advanced by the petitioner, as is apparent, are based on mere surmises and assumptions as to the possibility of future conduct.

The judges observed that even as far as the particular slogan cited by the petitioner is concerned, the court saw nothing objectionable therein. They further observed that to their minds it merely seeks to convey the sense of agency and self-efficacy that a woman is entitled to have and exercise over her person and actions, for whilst “feminism” and feminists may sometimes be viewed with opprobrium by those of a patriarchal or conservative bent of mind.

The court said it must be remembered that women’s rights are human rights, and in a country based on democratic values, women are entitled to and need to be extended the full measure of freedoms enshrined under the law and the constitution. It further observed that articles 15, 16, 17, 19 of the constitution are of particular relevance in that respect, guaranteeing the fundamental right to freedom of movement, assembly, association and speech to all citizens, with Article 25 going on to ensure equality before the law and equal protection of the law by stipulating inter alia that there can be no discrimination on the basis of sex alone.

The court observed that whilst it is true that such rights admit to reasonable restrictions, as qualified in each case, it is axiomatic that the same ought to normally be given as expansive an interpretation as possible in terms of the relevant article(s). It said that in the event of a restriction being imposed by the state, the same would fall to be tested by the court so as to ensure that the restriction is “reasonable” in the true sense.

The court observed that however, in the absence of any curb or constraint imposed by the state, it does not fall to the court to itself take on that function through proceedings under Article 199, especially when no fundamental right of a petitioner is being curtailed.

The court also observed that the petitioner does not qualify as an “aggrieved person” in terms of Article 199, and be that as it may, she sought to project the matter as warranting action in the public interest. It said it however in such cases is required to distinguish between genuine public interest litigation and litigation motivated by a desire to seek publicity or serve a private agenda.

It observed that the present petition does not disclose any valid cause of action and appears to be nothing more than an attempt to seek publicity. The court dismissed the petition in limine and imposed Rs25,000 as cost to be deposited by the petitioner towards the high court clinic within seven days failing which appropriate steps are to be taken for ensuring compliance by directing the National Database and Registration Authority to block the CNIC of the petitioner.