IHC okays plea against PTI dharna for hearing

ISLAMABAD: Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) here on Wednesday directed the secretary Ministry of Interior, district magistrate and inspector general, Islamabad Police, to appear in person before the court and apprise what steps they had taken to safeguard the fundamental rights of the public on account of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)’s November 2 proposed protest and lockdown of the city.

The IHC bench also directed the chairman Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) to place before the court material containing contents of speeches and statements purportedly made by PTI Chairman Imran Khan and aired on the electronic media regarding November 2 sit-in.

The IHC bench was hearing four petitions filed for restraining the PTI from holding a sit-in on November 2 and seeking directions for Pemra not to telecast Imran Khan’s speeches, interviews as he is still at large and did not surrender himself before the court of law that is seeking his arrest.

The court would resume hearing in this matter on Thursday (today).The petitions were filed by three practising lawyers, Raja Maqsood Hussain, Tasleem Abbasi, Faiz Ahmed Cheema and a law student Mohib Ullah.

The petitioners, through their counsel Barrister Jehangir Khan Jadoon, contended before the court that they wanted to implead the Islamabad chief commissioner and deputy commissioner as party in this matter, which the court allowed. The petitioners also nominated the federal government, through the Ministry of Interior, Pemra chairman, IG Islamabad Police and PTI chairman as respondents.

The petitioners adopted in the petitions that hurling threats to lock down the city attracts provision of the anti-terrorism act (ATA) and Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).

The petitioners adopted before the court that they learned through the media that the PTI chairman had hurled open and desperate threats in furtherance of his nefarious design to lock down the whole city through use of force for an indefinite period as nobody could move or enter the city. Being lawyers, the petitioners consider that such an act attracts the Section 6(1)(b) of the ATA 1997 besides other provisions of PPC. If the PTI chairman may not be restrained by the federal government institutions, there will be a chaotic situation and law and order would be at peril, the petitioners contend.

Complete lockdown of the city would badly affect work of the petitioners as they practise in both Rawalpindi and Islamabad cities.

The petitioners contended that the PTI chairman is nominated in the serious cases of attacking parliament, the Pakistan Television building and officers appointed on duties during the 2014 Dharna protest. Imran Khan does not believe in the rule of law and having known history of taking the law into his own hands, which is evident from his conduct in above-mentioned cases. Further, he never surrendered himself before a court of law or any agency and is still at large due to the collaboration of IG Islamabad and others, the petitioners alleged.

That Pakistan is at a very crucial stage where on the one hand it is fighting a war against terror and on the other hand, the army of the neighbouring country is knocking at the borders. A siege of the capital city would provide strength to the enemies in this situation, the petitioners further contended.

That as per the National Action Plan, anybody who has been involved in terrorist activities, his name, speeches and slogans cannot be published and telecast in any media in any form whereas the PTI chairman is involved in terrorist activities and wanted by a court of law, which is deliberately avoiding his arrest, and it is an irony that his speeches and interviews are regularly aired on electronic media.

The petitioners contended that it is a duty of the state to keep check on electronic media that NAP should not be violated. The Article 16 of the Constitution allows citizens to assemble in a peaceful manner, but this is not an absolute right, and law has imposed certain conditions on it. The Article 15 that provides for free movement of citizens would be infringed upon if this announced sit-in would not be checked, the petitioners said.

They requested the court that the proposed act of the PTI chairman may be declared as illegal, unconstitutional within the preview of ATA and other PPC provisions. The federal government may be directed to ensure free and smooth movement of the citizens. The PTI chairman may be apprehended as he is already wanted by the anti-terrorism court (ATC), and NAP may be implemented avoiding Imran Khan’s speeches and interviews to be telecast on media.