Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb presided over the hearing on a contempt of court petition for not granting permission for a protest to the former ruling party.
The PTI lawyer argued that they had submitted a request on July 22 to hold a protest on July 26. The court inquired about the decision that led to the contempt of court claim, to which the state council responded that two orders had been passed. The court noted that it had been documented that protests or rallies could take place after August 20.
The court addressed the PTI lawyer, remarking that there was no basis for a contempt of court claim in this situation. The judge highlighted that a request had been sent to PTI and that the blocking of Faizabad was causing harm to the nation, referencing the previous sit-in at Islamabad’s D-Chowk that resulted in deaths due to blocked ambulance access.
In a discussion with the state council, the court pointed out that if the ruling party requested permission, it seemed to be granted more readily, emphasizing that this should not be the case just because PTI was in opposition. The court expressed surprise at whether permission had been granted for protests in a park.
The court emphasized the need to maintain parks as public spaces and suggested establishing rules to designate specific areas for protests, cautioning against turning the country into a “banana republic.” The court expressed concern that the current situation was deterring people from visiting the country.
Justice Miangul questioned whether the contempt of court claim was valid and stated that he would pass an order on the matter. The state council reiterated that the district administration had indeed granted PTI permission to hold a rally on August 22.
The PTI lawyer clarified that their application was for a protest outside the Press Club, not a rally and that the case for rally permission was in the Chief Justice’s court, separate from their protest application.
Justice Miangul remarked that the Election Commission has details of political parties’ accounts, and based on these details, could potentially attach the accounts of parties that cause damage to the national treasury during protests.
He emphasized that this was a contempt of court application, and the court’s role was not to grant rally permissions in such cases. He concluded by saying that the district administration does not deny PTI permission just for praise but to demonstrate that they have rejected the application.
Earlier on July 6, PTI canceled its rally in Islamabad after a legal dispute with local authorities over the revocation of the No Objection Certificate (NOC). PTI leader Omar Ayub criticized the Islamabad administration for revoking the permit over security concerns, questioning their motivations.
Last week, IHC rejected PTI’s request to hold a protest, declaring it practically impossible, and citing security concerns. IHC reiterated that PTI’s protest could exacerbate the situation in an already locked-down Islamabad.
However, PTI on Monday announced nationwide protests on August 5 to demand the release of its founder, Imran Khan, and address the severe inflation affecting the public.