Islamabad: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s Asad Umar filed a petition on Saturday, October 8 2022, contesting the implementation of Section 144 in the nation’s capital and arguing that the action should be deemed “ultra vires to the specific provisions of the Constitution,” with the Islamabad High Court (IHC) deferring judgement on Monday, October 10 2022.
The Criminal Procedure Code’s Section 144 places restrictions on meetings of more than four people. In a story published on September 25 by Dawn, police and administrative officials said section 144 was still remained imposed in the capital.
Umar’s petition against the government’s action comes as Imran Khan, the leader of the PTI, is expected to call for a protest march into the federal capital in support of what the party calls “Haqiqi Azadi” (true freedom), and the government plans to stop the march.
On October 10 2022, IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah took up the argument and questioned how Section 144’s implementation had affected Umar.
Asad Umar questioned, “Did anybody stop the petition from asking for authorization for a peaceful protest?”
The court was informed by Umar’s attorney, Babar Awan, that Umar was a PTI leader and that his party had participated in political activities. The Supreme Court had held in the “dharna case” that authorization was required for a peaceful demonstration, the IHC remarked during the hearing.
He went on to say, “In two provinces, this party (PTI) is in power. Has there never been a violation of Section 144?” He continued, “Was Section 144 never used in Islamabad during the PTI’s tenure?”
According to Justice Minallah, the government must uphold the peace and handle concerns of law and order, in which the court will never meddle.
Regarding whether Umar’s plea might be maintained, the IHC CJ reserved judgement.
The Plea
Umar said in his application that Section 144 should be ruled ultra vires to the Constitution and the fundamental rights protected by it since it is a “reflection of colonial past.”
The issuance of notifications “under the guise of provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, imposing continuous restrictions of more than two months be declared void. Ab-anition, illegal, unlawful against the express provisions of Article 4, 8, 10-A, 15, 16 and 17 of the Constitution,” was another request he made.
