January 16, 2026
By Rehan Piracha
LAHORE
Since October 2024, the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) remains in the dark about the reasons behind its proscription, with the federal government refusing to share the grounds for banning the organization and its leaders, including chief Manzoor Ahmad Pashteen, their legal counsel revealed on Friday.
Speaking to Voicepk from Peshawar, Attaullah Kundi, counsel for PTM chief Manzoor Pashteen, disclosed that the federal government has submitted a sealed envelope to the Peshawar High Court containing sensitive information that has been deliberately withheld from the petitioners.
“The sealed envelope was taken on record and placed on the Court file, to be opened and considered on the next date of hearing,” Kundi explained, adding that the contents have not been shared with PTM.
On January 14, the Peshawar High Court received a confidential report from the federal government regarding the ban on PTM and its leaders. Additional Attorney General Sanaullah provided the sealed report to a bench comprising Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal, stating it contained sensitive information for the court’s perusal only.
Grounds still concealed
Kundi emphasized the lack of transparency in the proceedings. “In fact, the Additional Attorney General himself requested that the documents contained in the sealed envelope should not be shared with the petitioners, which clearly shows that, up till now, PTM has not been provided access to the material relied upon for its proscription,” he told Voicepk.
The sealed envelope reportedly contains the minutes of a Cabinet meeting conducted through circulation, along with the summary and annexures seeking approval for PTM’s proscription. “This summary along with the annexures are actually the ‘grounds’ which the Cabinet considered to pass the proscription order,” Kundi said.
“This establishes that the grounds of proscription were never shared with PTM, despite the law clearly mandating that such grounds must be communicated within three days of the ban,” he added.
The hearing could not proceed further as the court had to adjourn early that day, and the matter has been adjourned to January 21.
KP govt supports ban on PTM
When asked whether the PTI-led Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial government supports the federal government’s ban, Kundi confirmed that the comments filed by the KP government in court support the federal decision to ban PTM.
The bench was hearing a petition jointly filed by Manzoor Pashteen and nine others, requesting the court to declare illegal the ban on PTM under Section 11B of the Anti-Terrorism Act and the proscription of the petitioners under Section 11-EE.
The petitioners have sought court orders for the federal government to remove PTM from the list of banned outfits in the First Schedule of the ATA and their names from the Fourth Schedule. They have also requested the court to declare that Sections 11-B and 11-EE, amended through the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Act, 2014, conflict with Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to fair trial and due process of law.
Furthermore, the petitioners have sought orders for Section 11-D of the law, which deals with keeping an organization under observation, to be read as a mandatory precursor to proscription under Section 11-B.
PTM’s non-violent legacy
In his arguments before the court, Kundi described PTM as a civil and non-violent social movement that has been advocating for the rights of Pashtuns since its formation in 2014. Unlike violent or militant movements in the region, PTM has drawn inspiration from advocate of non-violence Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and has consistently stood against violence, he argued.
Kundi noted that PTM organized the Pashtun National Jirga from October 11 to 13, 2024, in Khyber tribal district to provide a platform for Pashtuns to demand justice and accountability.
However, to the shock of his clients, the federal government issued a notification on October 6, 2024, banning PTM, while the petitioners and several other leaders were proscribed under Section 11-EE with their names placed in the Fourth Schedule of the ATA.
Challenging the ATA amendment
The lawyer argued that while a 2014 amendment to the ATA empowered the government to ban an organization on an ex parte basis without providing an opportunity of hearing, this provision is unconstitutional and against the principle of natural justice.
Kundi contended that the federal government banned PTM claiming cabinet approval but neither made the cabinet’s decision public nor shared the grounds for the ban with his clients.
Respondents in the petition include the federal government through the interior secretary, the provincial government through its chief secretary, inspector general of police, additional chief secretary (home and tribal affairs), and Peshawar’s chief capital city police officer. The case will be heard again on January 21.