K-P AG asks to make PTI, K-P CM respondents, challenges IHC\u2019s jurisdiction beyond Islamabad<\/p>\n
PTI protest. Photo: Express <\/p>\n
<\/strong><\/p>\n
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday sought affidavits from the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa chief secretary and inspector general of police stating that government machinery would not be used for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf\u2019s (PTI) September 27 long march.<\/p>\n
The court also directed the two officials to appear at the next hearing on Monday and sought rebuttal arguments from the parties. Officials from the other provinces were not required to appear at the next hearing.<\/p>\n
The PTI last month announced<\/a> a September 27 march in Islamabad to demand the release of Imran Khan, with caravans from across the country expected to converge on the federal capital. The party also planned protests, shutdowns and demonstrations along major highways in cities, including Lahore, Karachi, Hyderabad and Quetta.<\/p>\n The petition<\/a>, filed by citizen Waqas Ahmed, argued that the PTI\u2019s planned September 27 protest and long march could affect his business in Islamabad. His lawyer raised concerns over the possible use of government machinery and referred to the party\u2019s previous attempt to enter the capital in 2024.<\/p>\n Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar, heading a larger bench comprising Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Muhammad Asif, heard the petition.<\/p>\n K-P Advocate General Shah Faisal requested that the PTI and the chief minister be made respondents in the case and be given an opportunity to respond. He also challenged the court\u2019s jurisdiction, arguing that the IHC\u2019s jurisdiction was limited to Islamabad and did not extend to Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan or K-P.<\/p>\n Also Read:<\/strong> IHC seeks record of action against past court order violators ahead of PTI Sept 27 march<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cIf the Islamabad High Court had jurisdiction over the entire country, why was its jurisdiction limited to Islamabad in the law?\u201d he asked. He argued that allowing one high court to interfere in matters falling within the jurisdiction of other provinces would render the 18th Amendment ineffective.<\/p>\n The advocate general also questioned whether the petitioner was an aggrieved party and urged the court to first satisfy itself on the question of jurisdiction before proceeding with the petition.<\/p>\n During the hearing, the advocate general said the audio was not clear and asked the court to forgive him if he made a mistake. \u201cIf you make a mistake, I do not forgive you, but I will explain it to you,\u201d Chief Justice Dogar remarked.<\/p>\n The advocate general replied that it was the chief justice\u2019s right and called him \u201cthe king\u201d. \u201cThere is no need to say that I am the king. This is a court, and the court fulfils its responsibilities,\u201d the chief justice responded.<\/p>\n The court also questioned whether the political party itself was organising the long march. \u201cFirst, the party should be made a respondent in the petition and be given an opportunity to respond,\u201d the advocate general replied.<\/p>\n Chief Justice Dogar asked whether the advocate general had consulted the K-P chief minister about the case. The advocate general replied that the chief minister was not organising the long march, but was both the provincial chief minister and a member of a political party.<\/p>\n The chief justice observed that this meant the chief minister was \u201cwearing two hats\u201d \u2014 one as chief minister and the other as a political party member.<\/p>\n