'Is judiciary so weak that you wish to strengthen it?' IHC CJ asks as KP counsel justifies PTI’s Sept 27 march

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar on Thursday admonished Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Advocate General Shah Faisal Utmankhel after he described PTI’s September 27 protest call as a move in support of the judiciary.

The PTI has announced a nationwide protest on Sept 27 to demand the release of party founder Imran Khan and mobilise people for the supremacy of the Constitution.

A citizen, Waqas Ahmed, had challenged the planned move in the IHC on the grounds that the protest could disrupt routine life, traffic and business activities in the federal capital. On Tuesday, CJ Dogar decided to form a larger bench to hear the petition, observing the sensitive nature of the matter.

As Utmankhel appeared before the IHC on Thursday, he contended that the PTI long march was also being organised in support of the judiciary.

“Thank you very much for wanting to strengthen the judiciary,” the chief justice remarked sarcastically, before asking: “Is the judiciary so weak that you wish to strengthen it?”

CJ Dogar observed that the judiciary was not so weak as to require the support of a political party.

At the outset of the hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan contended that government machinery could not be used for political protests.

AGP Awan said no government officer should comply with an order contrary to the Constitution and the law. However, he added that it would be difficult for an officer to refuse an order issued by the chief executive of a province, referring to KP Chief Minister Sohail Afridi, who belongs to the PTI.

“If this court issues an order, it will be binding on anyone holding an executive position,” the attorney general said, adding that clear judicial directives would make it easier for civil servants to implement them.

The chief justice asked whether the KP chief secretary and inspector general of police (IGP) were not bound by an IHC order issued in 2024.

“Yes, absolutely; they are bound to implement that order,” AGP Awan replied.

He said state resources could not be used for political activities, even if a protest was peaceful. Referring to PTI’s 2024 protest, he said the then-chief minister of KP had led the demonstration himself.

The 2024 order had come days before a PTI power show planned for late November, barring the party from holding any protests or rallies. However, the party went ahead with the protest as scheduled, leading to a day of clashes between security forces and protesters in Islamabad’s Red Zone that ended with the PTI leadership’s hasty retreat.

The bench then summoned the KP AG to the rostrum and asked him to explain the provincial government’s position.

The KP AG said he had received the notice only a day earlier and was not even aware of the contents of the petition. He also objected to the petition’s maintainability, arguing that the matter was premature.

CJ Dogar, however, asked him to respond after hearing AGP Awan’s submissions.

The KP law officer maintained that orders of superior courts had not always been complied with in the past and objected to remarks concerning the province’s chief executive, who, he pointed out, was not a party to the case.

He also questioned the premise of the petition, asking why the proposed long march was being perceived as an “attack”.

In an apparent reference to previous IHC orders directing that meetings between Imran and his family and party leadership be arranged, the KP AG said the court had repeatedly issued such directions, but they had not been complied with. He added that “dozens” of contempt petitions had subsequently been filed.

He requested two days to prepare his arguments.

The chief justice declined the request and gave him until the following day, directing him to at least begin his arguments at the next hearing.

When the chief justice referred to media coverage of the court’s previous order, the KP AG said that, given his responsibilities, he did not have time to watch television.

At one point, the petitioner’s counsel objected to the KP AG’s appearance, asking whether he was representing a convicted prisoner.

The court directed the KP AG to produce, at the next hearing, a record of action taken in the past against those who had violated court orders.

The bench also summoned the inspector generals and chief secretaries of all four provinces, along with other relevant officials, for the next hearing and issued fresh notices to ensure their appearance. The court directed all the summoned officials to appear again on September 11 (Friday).