In light of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-(PTI) Insaf’s anticipated protracted march towards the capital, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday rejected the PTI’s appeal against the federal government’s decision to apply section 144 in Islamabad.
PTI leader Asad Umar’s appeal was heard before the IHC, and the judge ordered that it be attached to the cases that were already open.
Asad Umar informed the court during the hearing that the District Magistrate had violated the law by imposing section 144 for two months.
“How are you affected?,” the court enquired. Are you halted so that you can speak? According to PTI’s attorney Babar Awan, a rally cannot be staged in accordance with section 144.
There is a way to have a protest or a demonstration for which authorization is necessary, Justice Athar Minallah said, adding, “There is also a ruling in the PTI’s sit-in case; have you read it?”
Has Section 144 never been put into effect here, where PTI controls the government in two provinces? The government is responsible for maintaining law and order, and the court would never become involved in such matters, he continued.
He said, “You have a government in Punjab and KP; you should first go to these provinces and have the assembly remove this law; when the law has been abolished by the provincial legislatures, come here.”
Later, the court postponed making a judgement about the validity of PTI’s argument against Section 144 of the local law.
IHC Justice Athar Minallah announced the decision and dismissed PTI leader Asad Umar’s plea to overturn the application of Section 144.
The National Assembly and the Senate still have enough PTI representation, according to the court’s ruling. The PTI has an alternative venue in Parliament and the Senate, and the party can introduce a bill to repeal Article 144 in the House.
“The administration has sole jurisdiction over matters of peace; the judiciary is not a stand-in for the government’s judgments and opinions in this regard. According to section 144, the case can only be brought before the court if there has been an abuse of authority, “It was added.
