September 14, 2026
By Hashir Ahsan
ISLAMABAD
A three-member larger bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) while announcing its verdict on the petition against the planned long march by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) to be held on September 27 in the capital city, has stated that there is no political party or public office holder that has the authority to block the roads of Islamabad. The Chief Ministers of the provinces must ensure that official machinery is not used in political party protests, the bench stated.
Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar, delivering the decision, said that no government officer should comply with forced orders compelling participation in any protest or rally. Any officer subjected to such pressure must immediately inform the Chief Secretary, Chief Commissioner, or Inspector General of Police (IG) of their province. Furthermore, no public servant should allow their subordinate personnel to join any march or protest heading toward Islamabad.
The provincial Chief Secretaries, Chief Commissioner Islamabad, and Inspectors General were directed to establish immediate helplines. The court also instructed the IG Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to stop any illegal and unconstitutional assembly and to disperse the demonstrators.
The three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar heard the case, with Justice Azam Khan and Justice Asif also serving on the bench. During the proceedings, IG Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Zulfiqar Hameed and Chief Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Shahab Ali Shah appeared before the court and submitted the affidavits requested by the bench.
Footage shows violence in previous protests
Advocate General Islamabad Naveed Hayat Malik, presenting his arguments, stated that he had filed a miscellaneous application regarding the screening of videos from PTI’s 2022 and 2024 protests in court.
Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar remarked that playing videos was not the tradition of the court; however, the court allowed the videos to be screened just once.
Consequently, videos of PTI’s 2022 and 2024 protests were played in the courtroom. The Advocate General Islamabad contended that official machinery had been utilized in the 2022 protest, administrative barriers were removed using cranes, fires were set at D-Chowk causing property damage, and Police Constable Kamal had been martyred.
He added that a similar situation had unfolded in 2024, where Islamabad had been attacked with full force, shells had been fired at the police, vandalism had occurred across the city, and an attempt had been made to ‘crush’ Rangers’ personnel under a vehicle, while cars had been set on fire in front of F-9 Park. He emphasized that this had been by no means a peaceful gathering.
Govt has right to implement measures: AG Islamabad
The AG Islamabad stated that seeking permission from the District Magistrate is mandatory for holding a rally or procession in Islamabad. In light of an application, the Magistrate has the authority to grant permission or reject it if not satisfied. Placing containers for security arrangements is the jurisdiction of the government.
He noted that PTI’s long march has two evident objectives: the release of a convicted prisoner and sending the government home—both of which are illegal demands. The legal path to release a convicted prisoner is through the courts, whereas changing a government requires a motion of no confidence in Parliament.
The Advocate General argued that if someone is dissatisfied with the Prime Minister, they should move a no-confidence motion in Parliament, as overthrowing a government through street protests contradicts the rule of law. He noted that the increasing number of court filings indicates growing public trust in the judiciary.
He also submitted that PTI intends to march to Islamabad with full resources and that the administration lacks the capacity to stop them outright; they can only make advance arrangements, enforce Section 144, and place containers. He stated that they cannot fire upon their own citizens or take their lives, so action must be taken before the situation spirals out of control.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar inquired whether government representatives also have the right to deliver provocative speeches.
The AG Islamabad replied that no one has the right to make provocative speeches, nor does the Constitution permit it. The Chief Justice reiterated whether Chief Ministers or government representatives could make such speeches, to which the Advocate General responded that no one possesses such a right.
The Advocate General Islamabad added that while the right to peaceful protest exists, it comes with conditions: an application must be submitted and details provided so appropriate security arrangements can be made. Under the law, the District Magistrate can reject a protest request, and the government holds the authority to declare any area a Red Zone.
Subsequently, counsel for the petitioner, Akhtar Chheena, argued that the Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa had termed the petition premature. He stated that his life and his children’s education are fundamental rights under the Constitution, and if life is threatened, one cannot wait until damage occurs before approaching the court.
The petitioner’s counsel remarked that a person cannot be expected to wait while someone stands with a gun to their head before seeking legal remedy. Noting that the Advocate General Islamabad admitted people are coming to Islamabad, he argued that the distinction between the government and a political party has blurred.
He highlighted that the Chief Minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is delivering speeches declaring he will bring 4 million people for the release of a convicted individual. He questioned whether, if 4 million people arrived, the government would direct the court to grant bail to the prisoner, asking what would become of judicial independence in such a scenario.
The counsel added that protests cannot be staged for unconstitutional demands, especially when the Advocate General Islamabad explicitly conceded that the government lacks the capacity to stop hundreds of thousands of people. If the court does not issue an order, the petitioner is left with no other recourse.
During the proceedings, Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar summoned IG Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to the rostrum and directed him to read out the affidavit submitted to the court. IG Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Zulfiqar Hameed read his affidavit aloud.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that instead of merely stopping the use of official machinery, the IG should also be instructed to stop the illegal long march itself. At this, the Chief Justice inquired of the IG whether he would fail to stop an illegal and unconstitutional act. IG Khyber Pakhtunkhwa replied that the affidavit was submitted in accordance with the court’s directives.
The Chief Justice remarked that he should have also explicitly stated in the affidavit that he would stop any illegal and unconstitutional action. IG Khyber Pakhtunkhwa then affirmed that if any illegal activity occurred, they would stop it. Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar subsequently directed the IG Khyber Pakhtunkhwa that if any illegal and unconstitutional assembly takes place, they must stop it and disperse the demonstrators.
Following the conclusion of arguments from all parties on the petition, the court reserved its verdict.