The Islamabad High Court (IHC) expressed frustration on Wednesday over the massive disruption caused to businesses in the capital during the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party’s ‘final call’ protest. The court criticized both the government’s actions and those of the protesting party, deeming them equally inappropriate.
Background: PTI’s Protest Call and Court’s Initial Ruling
On November 13, PTI Chairman Imran Khan issued a nationwide call for protests, planned for November 24, demanding the restoration of PTI’s electoral mandate, the release of detained party members, and the reversal of the controversial 26th Amendment, which Khan argued had solidified a “dictatorial regime” in Pakistan.
In response to PTI’s planned protest, the IHC ruled the event unlawful and instructed the federal government to ensure law and order in Islamabad. The court emphasized that the protest should not disrupt the everyday lives of citizens, particularly with the arrival of the Belarusian president coinciding with the demonstration. Chief Justice Aamer Farooq questioned why protests led to widespread blockades of the city. “What alternative solutions can be implemented instead of shutting down the city with containers?” he asked during the initial hearing.
Traders’ Petition and Court’s Disappointment with Government’s Actions
On the following hearing, the court resumed proceedings in response to a petition filed by Islamabad’s business community, who raised concerns about the potential economic losses due to the disruption of their operations. Several officials, including Islamabad’s Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Legal Sajid Cheema and state counsel Malik Abdul Rehman, appeared before the court to defend the government’s actions.
Justice Farooq was visibly upset with both the government and the administration’s handling of the situation. He criticized the authorities for imposing city-wide blockades, stating, “You were supposed to restore law and order, but instead, you shut down the entire Islamabad.” He pointed out that the traders had simply requested to be allowed to operate their businesses, but their pleas went unheard.
Court Highlights Violation of Fundamental Rights
The IHC’s ruling emphasized that the government’s approach to handling the protest had directly violated the fundamental rights of citizens, including the right to do business. Justice Farooq remarked, “The media repeatedly cited the IHC order as the reason for not allowing the protest, but we also asked you to protect the fundamental rights of both citizens and protesters alike.” He also raised the issue of how the city’s closure had impacted not just businesses but also judicial functions, remarking that even he, as the Chief Justice, faced difficulties getting to the court due to the blockades.
The court further stated that while it would address PTI for violating court orders, it acknowledged that the government’s actions were just as problematic. “What was the petitioners’ fault? Why were their businesses closed?” Justice Farooq inquired.
Government’s Inadequate Response and Court’s Call for Accountability
When asked for a report on the matter, the state counsel, Malik Abdul Rehman, stated that some reports were available, but others were still pending. Justice Farooq expressed his disappointment, saying, “Are you appearing before a court for the first time? You should’ve given this expert opinion at the interior ministry earlier.”
In a moment of self-reflection, the judge humorously stated, “I became the victim of my own order,” referring to the difficulties he personally faced due to the city’s lockdown. He also questioned the necessity of the extreme measures, stating, “I will also ask PTI: What was the fault of the common citizens in this fight against the government?”
The hearing was adjourned, with the court directing the Interior Ministry to submit a detailed report on the matter before the next session.
Impact on Islamabad’s Daily Life and Business Community
As PTI supporters began to gather at Islamabad’s D-Chowk on November 24, the city’s entrances were sealed off with containers. Main highways and roads linking residential sectors were also blocked, and the capital’s academic institutions, hostels, and bus terminals were shut down in anticipation of the protests. The disruptions caused shortages in essential supplies, such as dairy, poultry, and groceries, while rawalpindi residents faced challenges as the metro bus service was suspended and security measures affected business activities.
In addition, educational institutions and inter-provincial bus terminals were closed, further exacerbating the inconvenience for Islamabad’s residents.
The Aftermath: A Chaotic Protest and Political Fallout
Despite the heavy security and blockades, PTI’s protest culminated on November 26, leading to intense clashes between party supporters and security forces. The confrontations continued until the early hours of November 27, when PTI’s top leadership and protesters were forced to retreat from Islamabad’s Red Zone.
Commentary and Opinion: The Consequences of Political Protests on Public Life
The Islamabad High Court’s remarks highlight a significant issue regarding the balance between the right to protest and the maintenance of public order. While protests are a fundamental right in a democracy, the methods employed by PTI and the government alike have led to severe disruptions in the daily lives of ordinary citizens. In this case, businesses, educational institutions, and public services were all affected by actions that, while politically motivated, failed to consider the broader impact on the public.
The court’s criticism of both the PTI and the government suggests that both parties have mishandled their duties. PTI, by continuing with unlawful protests, and the government, by imposing city-wide blockades that went beyond maintaining law and order to cause unnecessary hardship. The handling of this protest exposes a deeper problem: the ongoing political instability in Pakistan, which seems to prioritize political interests over the welfare of citizens.
Going forward, it is essential for both the government and opposition to seek solutions that respect citizens’ rights while allowing for peaceful political expression. The case serves as a reminder that any democratic process must be underpinned by respect for the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights, without causing disproportionate harm to the public.