ISLAMABAD: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Advocate General Shah Faisal Utmankhel on Friday challenged the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) jurisdiction to hear a petition against the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) September 27 march towards Islamabad.
A three-member larger bench heard the petition filed by citizen Waqas Ahmed. IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar headed the bench. Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Muhammad Asif were also part of it.
The KP advocate general asked the court to decide the jurisdiction issue before hearing the petition further.
KP AG Challenges IHC Jurisdiction
Appearing before the bench, Shah Faisal Utmankhel argued that the IHC’s jurisdiction only covers the Islamabad Capital Territory.
He said the court could not issue directions to officials in other provinces.
“This court does not have jurisdiction,” the KP AG said.
He also questioned whether the petitioner was an affected party. He asked why a single citizen had approached the court on behalf of the entire federal capital.
Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar asked whether the PTI was organising the proposed march.
The KP advocate general said his role was to assist the court. He also questioned whether the PTI had received notice and an opportunity to present its position.
“Was the party given an opportunity to be heard?” he asked.
He added that several political parties planned marches but had not become respondents in the case.
Court Questions KP CM’s Role
During the hearing, the chief justice questioned KP Chief Minister Sohail Afridi’s role in the proposed political activity.
The court noted that Afridi held two positions. He served as chief minister and also remained a member of a political party.
“If he were not a member of the party, how could he become chief minister?” the KP advocate general responded.
The KP AG maintained that the chief minister’s statement contained nothing contrary to the Constitution or law.
Chief Justice Dogar, however, questioned why Afridi made the statement while holding a constitutional office.
He also referred to the chief minister’s oath of allegiance to the state.
The KP chief secretary told the court that the chief minister could respond himself to statements about political gatherings.
Court Questions Protests Moving Towards Islamabad
The bench also questioned why political protests from KP repeatedly moved towards Islamabad.
The KP chief secretary described the proposed activity as political.
The chief justice then questioned whether “storming the federal capital” could also qualify as political activity.
The court subsequently sought affidavits from the KP chief secretary and inspector general of police (IGP).
KP AG Raises Citizens’ Rights
The KP advocate general also referred to remarks by Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz about a terror threat from provinces.
He then raised the issue of court orders concerning PTI founder Imran Khan’s meetings at Adiala Jail.
The KP AG claimed that authorities had not implemented judicial orders for two years.
He questioned whether citizens had no right to protest against such issues.
The chief justice said those matters concerned contempt proceedings.
The KP AG also claimed that cases were not being fixed.
Justice Dogar responded that the judiciary’s administrative authority covered the scheduling of cases.
He warned that the KP advocate general’s remarks amounted to an “attack on the judiciary”.
The AG maintained that he was raising issues concerning citizens’ rights.
AGs Discuss Protest Restrictions
The KP advocate general also objected to the possible deployment of containers during protests.
He questioned whether restricting movement in Islamabad violated citizens’ rights.
He urged the court to take notice of measures taken by the federal government.
During the hearing, Punjab Advocate General Barrister Zafarullah criticised the KP AG’s remarks about Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz.
He said the court was a judicial forum and not a political forum.
The Sindh advocate general assured the court that the provincial government would comply with any directions issued by the bench.
IHC Seeks Affidavits From KP Officials
At the conclusion of the hearing, the IHC directed the KP chief secretary and IGP to submit their affidavits by Monday.
The court said only the chief secretary and IGP would need to appear at the next hearing.
Other officials would not need to attend.
The court also allowed the parties to submit rejoinders.
The IHC adjourned further proceedings until Monday.
