The Islamabad High Court (IHC) and LHC Multan bench have restricted the government on Tuesday from "needlessly harassing" PTI members and issued notices to the Islamabad inspector general of police, chief commissioner and deputy commissioner.
Similarly, Mr.Justice Suhail Nasir of High Court Multan bench ordered to release Begum Qurban Fatima Senior Vice President PTI Women wing Punjab and the court reprimanded the SHO Police for harassing and breaking into the door at midnight. The Judge asked the SHO police to explain who had asked him to arrest the house wife at night.Th court asked him to show arrest warrants or order of superiors. Then he responded that he had received detention orders under section 3 MPO at 0300 PM today. The court asked himas to why not he (SHO) be sent to prison for violating the law and committing three crime. Upon this he tendered unconditional apology.
"Make sure that no one is harassed needlessly," the court said, but held back from issuing what it described as a "general order" that the PTI's counsel was requesting.
The court's directive comes hours after police raids at the houses of several PTI leaders and workers, as the party is set to begin its "Azadi March" towards Islamabad on May 25 (tomorrow).
Earlier this week, the PTI had announced the final date of the march and party chief Imran Khan had said on the occasion that the main demands for the march to the capital were the immediate dissolution of the National Assembly and a date for the next general election.On Monday, the PTI had preemptively moved the IHC to restrain the government from creating hurdles in the way of the Azadi March.
When the petition was taken up the IHC Chief Justice (CJ) Athar Minallah today, PTI's counsel Barrister Ali Zafar contended that holding a peaceful protest was everyone's right, given under the Constitution.
He told the court that after the petition was filed, raids were conducted at PTI workers' and leaders' residences on Monday night.
Police raided the residences of several PTI leaders late last night, after a high-powered party meeting in Lahore's Model Town — chaired by PM Shehbaz Sharif and attended by his elder brother and PML-N supremo Nawaz via video link — resolved that the government would not be dictated by ousted premier Imran Khan’s demand for early elections.
There were reports of late-night police action at the houses of former federal minister Hammad Azhar in Lahore, while the Lal Haveli residence of Sheikh Rashid Ahmed and the homes of Fayyazul Hasan Chohan and Ijaz Khan Jazi in Rawalpindi was also raided, among others.
When Barrister Zafar highlighted these incidents at today's hearing, the IHC said the Supreme Court's directives regarding rallies and sit-ins were clear.
"There are principles set by the Supreme Court and this court will also follow these," the court said.
At that, Barrister Zafar said: "We, too, will follow the Supreme Court's principles."
He again raised the issue of PTI members being arrested and restricted from participating in the march on Islamabad.
At that, the court said IHC had also issued rulings pertaining to rallies and sit-ins and the judgement by the high court were given in light of the SC's principles.
The PTI counsel then requested the court to order the government not to arrest PTI members and bar them from participating in the march.
IHC CJ recalled at that point that the PTI had staged a sit-in in 2014 after taking permission from the government.
"From there, (PTI) members were arrested," he said, adding that the request could be considered if the party, along with the district administration, finalised a place for its protest in the capital.
"Peaceful protest is your right," Justice Minallah said, but added: "You are well aware of the circumstances. This court cannot take responsibility for any incident."
At that point, he did not elaborate further on the nature of the incident he was referring to.
The CJ told the counsel that he was requesting a general order, which "we cannot give just like that".
"God forbid, if an incident takes place, what would happen then? This court cannot take responsibility," he remarked.
At that, Barrister Zafar said: "We want a peaceful protest, but police are raiding houses."
He said the houses of female PTI members were raided across the country and that they were harrassed.
"Police also raided the houses of former judges late at night," he added.
The CJ asked the counsel whether he could submit an affidavit stating that "no incident will take place and if it does, the party would be responsible".
"The way you cannot submit an affidavit, this court cannot issue a general order," he said.
After that, the PTI's counsel requested a suspension of the hearing to that he could go through SC directives regarding rallies and sit-ins.
The court accepted his request and suspended the hearing for a while. When the hearing was resumed, Justice Minallah recalled that the IHC had issued an order regarding a protest march in 2014, after which the Pakistan Television (PTV) headquarters and parliament were "attacked".
"This court is not saying that your party did that (attack), but can it be denied that this incident took place?" he questioned. "When the court issues an order and such an incident takes place, who is responsible for it?"
During the PTI and Pakistan Awami Tehreek's Islamabad sit-in in 2014, then-senior superintendent of police of Islamabad Asmatullah Junejo was severely beaten up by a group of violent protesters on the Constitution Avenue as they had stormed the PTV headquarters and the precincts of the parliament on September 1.
Justice Minallah said the "state's writ was challenged by what happened with a senior officer of the SSP rank".
He further asked the counsel to go through court directives regarding a 2019 protest
The counsel told the court that they wanted it to stop the arrests.
At that, the court asked whether an application had been submitted to the district administration for the March 25 protest.
The counsel replied that an application had been submitted to the district magistrate.
The court then directed the government not to harass PTI members and adjourned the hearing till May 27.
The petition was filed by PTI’s additional general secretary Amir Mehmood Kiani, citing the interior secretary, Islamabad inspector general of police, chief commissioner and deputy commissioner as respondents.
The petitioner argued that the PTI leadership has decided to hold a peaceful public march/gathering on May 25 to register its protest for “real freedom”.
“The purpose of this public gathering is to draw attention of the government towards public sentiments,” the petition stated, adding that the respondents were illegally trying to halt the march through arrests and torture of PTI members, placing containers to block roads, arrests of families of PTI members and leaders and restrict the movement of people.
The directives by the courts come just hours after police launched a crackdown on the former ruling party and raided the houses of party leaders allegedly forcing them to go into hiding.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) issued notices to the concerned quarters to stop the "unnecessary harassment and arrests" of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) workers and leaders.
IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah was hearing the petition against the recent arrests of PTI workers and closure of routes amidst the party's much-hyped long march to the federal capital on May 25.
During the proceedings, PTI's counsel prayed that peaceful protest was the party's constitutional right but a crackdown was underway against its workers across the country.
He requested the court to bar the government from arresting party workers. To this, the CJ remarked that the high court has in the past issued verdicts regarding rallies in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling on the 2014 sit-in.
"The sit-in was held in 2014 with the permission of the government, which is why the order was issued. Some time ago, national assembly members were also harassed in the parliament lodges. The government should ensure that the constitutional right is allowed to be exercised peacefully," the judge said, adding that peaceful protest is PTI's right.
Justice Minallah further said that the parliament and PTV were attacked after the 2014 order whereas a senior police officer was also injured.
"The state writ was challenged at that time. Could the court have taken responsibility for what happened after the 2014 sit-in? Whoever did it has not been caught so far, so the court has to be careful," the judge added.
The CJ asked the lawyer if he had filed a request for the upcoming rally to which the lawyer replied in the affirmative.
The court then asked the PTI lawyer if he could provide an affidavit stating that no incident would take place during the sit-in and that the counsel would be responsible if an unfortunate incident occurs.
"If you cannot provide an affidavit then how can the court issue a general order?" the judge asked.
Subsequently, the IHC restricted the government from arresting PTI workers and issued notices to IG Islamabad and the commissioner in regard to the same. The court also directed the deputy commissioner and IG to not harass any PTI worker unnecessarily.
Justice Aziz of the LHC lamented that both the government and the opposition are pushing the country towards destruction without thinking about the future of the nation.
The PTI’s counsel advocate Azhar Siddique argued that the police officials are harassing PTI’s lawmakers including women and its workers who wanted to join the long march in Islamabad.
Recalling the time of the Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan (TLP) protest, he said: “I at that time had said the bails of the party workers should not be accepted.”
“How some people could derail a sitting government,” he asked.
Advocate Siddique highlighted that the party leaders, women and workers are being harassed and illegal raids are being conducted which is a sheer violation of the secrecy of houses.
He asked the court to instruct police to produce detention orders or any arrest warrants at the time of a raid.
On a point, Justice Aziz remarked: “I pray to God to award wisdom to this country’s leaders so they could know how to take this country ahead”.
Meanwhile, the Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Abdul Aziz sought a report from the Punjab chief secretary, inspector-general of the police (IGP) by May 25 on a petition filed against the illegal harassment and arrests of PTI’s workers and leaders.
The provincial additional attorney general and the assistant advocate general, however, opposed the petition filed by Advocate Yousaf Wyne.
It is pertinent to mention that PTI’s representatives also filed different writ petitions in the LHC seeking direction to the concerned quarters to restrain police from harassing or arresting their lawmakers and workers who were marching towards Islamabad.
The petitions were filed by PTI’s lawyers and lawmaker Dr Yasmeen Rashid through Advocate Azhar Siddique.
The petition contended that the federal and provincial governments had started undue interference in the peaceful arrangements of the long march, which was the basic and fundamental right of every citizen.
The police officials on the direction of respondents (interior minister, chief secretary, secretary home, IG Punjab and the CCPO) have made the life of innocent voters, supporters and members of the PTI difficult, the petition prayed.
Read Also: For maintained that respondents not only harassed and arrested their leaders and workers but also started blocking the main roads by placing contars, while petrol pumps were also being pressurised to stop the sale of the petrol to citizens, which was an injustice to the general public.
The court was further prayed that directions be passed to the respondents to release all PTI workers and citizens who are 'illegally' detained so that they can participate in the ‘Haqeeqi Azaadi March’ (long march).
It further prayed that since the current government had employed different tactics in order to hinder the aforementioned protest, the following directions be given to the respondents: “not to obstruct or hinder the path of the long march, not to interrupt mobile or internet signals, not to illegally arrest any participant and not to use force against them.”
