IHC Directs CMs to Ensure Govt Resources Aren’t Used for PTI March

IHC Directs Chief Ministers to Ensure Government Resources Are Not Used for PTI’s September 27 Islamabad March

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has taken up a significant legal and constitutional question surrounding Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) planned September 27 Islamabad march, directing attention toward the use of government resources, machinery and officials in political activities. The proceedings have brought the relationship between provincial governments, political parties and public institutions under renewed scrutiny ahead of the planned mobilisation.

The matter is particularly significant because PTI governs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, while the party has announced that its September 27 protest will involve a major mobilisation towards Islamabad. The planned march has been described by PTI leadership as a peaceful political activity aimed principally at demanding the release of party founder Imran Khan and raising concerns about access to him by his family, lawyers and personal doctors.

At the centre of the court proceedings is a question that goes beyond the march itself: whether public resources belonging to provincial governments can be used in connection with a political party’s protest. The court has stressed that government machinery and officials should not be used for political protests, while the PTI leadership has itself stated that government resources will not be used for the September 27 march.

IHC Takes Notice of September 27 March

The Islamabad High Court proceedings began after a petition was filed by Islamabad citizen and businessman Waqas Ahmed, who raised concerns about the possible impact of PTI’s proposed march on normal life, business activity and residents of the federal capital.

The petition also raised concerns about the possible involvement of government machinery in the planned mobilisation. The matter was considered sufficiently important by the court to warrant the involvement of senior federal and provincial officials.

The IHC subsequently constituted a larger bench to hear the petition. The bench comprises Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Muhammad Asif. The court also summoned senior administrative and police officials from the provinces and Islamabad.

The court’s decision to involve officials from all four provinces indicates the wider constitutional and administrative dimensions of the case. The issue is not simply about whether a political party can organise a protest. It also concerns the responsibilities of government officials and the appropriate use of public resources.

Government Resources at the Centre of the Dispute

During the proceedings, the issue of government machinery became one of the most important points of discussion.

The court observed that government resources cannot be used for political protests and questioned who would be responsible if court directions concerning the use of government machinery were violated. The Attorney General also agreed that relevant government officials would be required to comply with an order issued by the High Court.

This issue is particularly important because PTI’s planned mobilisation is expected to involve supporters travelling towards Islamabad from different parts of Pakistan. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is expected to play a major role in the mobilisation because the provincial government is led by PTI.

The legal question therefore concerns the distinction between a political party’s activities and the official responsibilities of a provincial government.

A chief minister may participate in political activities as a political leader, but government vehicles, police personnel, official funds, administrative staff and other state resources are public resources. The court proceedings are examining where the boundary lies between the political activities of elected representatives and their responsibilities as holders of public office.

PTI Says Government Resources Will Not Be Used

PTI leadership has rejected the suggestion that government machinery will be used for the September 27 march.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi previously stated that state machinery and government resources would not be used for the Islamabad march. According to his position, PTI workers would participate in the protest and party resources would be used for the mobilisation.

PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan has also said that the September 27 march would be peaceful and that there would be no use of government resources during the protest. He invited opposition parties to participate in the demonstration and presented it as a political movement for what the party describes as justice and democratic rights.

These statements are important because they directly address one of the major concerns raised during the court proceedings. However, the court is examining the matter independently and has sought clarification from government officials regarding their responsibilities.

Why the Role of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Matters

The involvement of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government has become particularly important because the province is governed by PTI and its chief minister has publicly discussed the planned march.

Sohail Afridi has announced that PTI workers will travel towards Islamabad on September 27. He has also described the protest as an important political mobilisation and said that Islamabad would be the main destination.

This creates a complicated administrative situation.

On one side, the chief minister is a political figure and can participate in political activities subject to applicable law. On the other side, the chief minister is also the head of a provincial government and has constitutional and administrative responsibilities.

The court’s concern is therefore focused on whether the machinery of the provincial government could become involved in a political mobilisation.

The distinction between party resources and state resources is especially important in a democratic system. Political parties can organise rallies, campaigns and demonstrations, but public resources are intended to serve the public and government institutions rather than individual political organisations.

Previous Protests Referred to During Hearing

During the hearing, the Attorney General referred to previous PTI protests and incidents involving law-and-order concerns.

The court was informed about the November 2024 protest and previous instances in which court directions were allegedly violated. The Attorney General also referred to injuries to police personnel during the 2024 protest and the deployment of the military under Article 245.

The May 2022 protest was also discussed. According to the arguments presented before the court, public property was damaged during that protest and parts of the Blue Area were affected.

It is important to distinguish between allegations or arguments presented during a court hearing and final judicial findings. References to previous protests were made as part of the legal arguments surrounding the September 27 march.

The IHC is considering whether sufficient safeguards are in place to protect residents, businesses, public property and government institutions during the upcoming political activity.

Protection of Islamabad Residents

The IHC has emphasised its constitutional responsibility to protect the rights of citizens of Islamabad.

Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar stated during the proceedings that the court could not allow the rights of Islamabad residents to be violated.

This aspect of the case is significant because large political demonstrations can affect ordinary residents in several ways.

Road closures can make commuting difficult. Businesses can experience disruptions. Schools, offices and hospitals may face access problems. Security arrangements can also affect movement around sensitive areas.

At the same time, peaceful political assembly is an important part of democratic life. The challenge for authorities is therefore to balance the right to political expression and assembly with the rights of residents and businesses.

The court proceedings are examining this balance within the legal framework governing protests in Islamabad.

The 2024 Legal Background

The IHC’s current proceedings also involve the court’s previous order concerning protests in Islamabad.

In November 2024, the Islamabad High Court ruled that protests, rallies and sit-ins could not be held in violation of the Peaceful Assembly and Public Order Act, 2024. The court also directed the Interior Ministry to engage with PTI leadership and instructed authorities to maintain law and order and protect public life and foreign dignitaries.

That order is relevant to the current proceedings because the court is examining whether previous directions were challenged, followed or violated.

The Attorney General told the court that, to the best of his knowledge, the 2024 order had not been challenged before another court. He also agreed that relevant officials would be required to follow a fresh order issued by the IHC.

Senior Officials Summoned

The court has involved senior officials from across the country in the proceedings.

The larger bench summoned chief secretaries and inspectors general of police from all four provinces. It also called the Islamabad chief commissioner, Islamabad IG and deputy commissioner, as well as advocate generals from the provinces and Islamabad.

The purpose of involving these officials is to clarify the responsibilities of the state administration before the planned protest.

The court wants to understand what measures have been taken previously, how existing court orders were implemented and what steps are being considered for the September 27 mobilisation.

This also means that the case could have implications beyond PTI’s upcoming protest. Any significant judicial directions concerning the use of government resources during political activities could become relevant to future political demonstrations.

PTI’s Main Demands

PTI has presented the September 27 march as a political protest focused on the party’s demands concerning its founder Imran Khan.

According to statements from PTI leadership, one of the main demands is the release of Imran Khan. Another major demand concerns access for his family members, lawyers and personal doctor.

PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar has described the march as a peaceful “Justice March” and has called on political parties, lawyers and the public to participate.

The party has also said that it wants constitutional and democratic issues to be addressed through legal and political means.

The government's position and the concerns raised by the petitioner, however, focus heavily on maintaining law and order and protecting public life.

Political Tensions Ahead of September 27

The court proceedings come at a time of heightened political activity in Pakistan.

PTI has been preparing for the September 27 mobilisation, while the government and administrative authorities are expected to focus on maintaining public order.

The political environment means that the march is likely to receive considerable attention from the public, political parties and the media.

PTI has indicated that supporters from different parts of the country could participate. The party had earlier discussed mobilisation plans involving Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and other parts of Pakistan.

The size of the planned mobilisation remains a political question, while its practical impact will depend on participation, routes, permissions and the security situation.

Importance of Government Neutrality

One of the broader issues raised by the case is the importance of government neutrality in political disputes.

Public institutions are expected to operate according to law and administrative rules regardless of which political party is in government.

When a political party is also in control of a provincial government, the distinction between party activity and government activity becomes especially important.

The IHC's focus on government resources reflects this principle. Public money, official vehicles, police personnel and administrative machinery are intended for public functions.

At the same time, elected representatives do not lose their political identities simply because they hold government office. The legal challenge is to ensure that political participation does not result in the inappropriate use of state resources.

Possible Impact on Provincial-Federal Relations

The case also has potential implications for relations between provincial and federal governments.

The September 27 march is directed towards Islamabad, which is the federal capital. The organisers include political figures associated with the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government.

The involvement of provincial officials and police leadership means that the issue touches upon the division of responsibilities between federal and provincial institutions.

The court's decision to summon officials from all four provinces suggests that the matter is being viewed through a broader national administrative lens rather than solely as a dispute involving PTI and Islamabad authorities.

Peaceful Assembly and Public Order

Another major aspect of the case is the balance between peaceful assembly and public order.

Political demonstrations are a normal part of democratic societies. Parties use rallies and marches to communicate their demands, mobilise supporters and draw public attention to political issues.

However, demonstrations must also operate within the legal framework established by the state.

The IHC is therefore considering whether the September 27 activity can take place while protecting residents, businesses, public property and other institutions.

PTI has repeatedly stated that its march will be peaceful. Gohar Ali Khan has specifically said that the party does not intend to create unrest or use government resources.

The court, meanwhile, is examining the matter from the perspective of constitutional rights, previous court orders and administrative responsibilities.

What the Court Proceedings Could Mean

The eventual outcome of the case could establish important guidance concerning political protests involving public office-holders.

If the court issues detailed directions regarding government machinery, those directions could affect how provincial governments handle political demonstrations in the future.

The case could also clarify the responsibilities of chief ministers, chief secretaries, police chiefs and other government officials when political activity is organised by the party in power.

However, until the court gives a final decision, it is important not to assume what the final legal outcome will be.

The current proceedings are focused on hearing the parties, examining government responsibilities and determining the legal framework applicable to the proposed march.

September 27 March Remains a Major Political Event

The planned September 27 march is expected to be one of the major political events in Pakistan's current political calendar.

PTI has presented it as a nationwide mobilisation connected to its political demands. The party has also sought support from other opposition groups.

The government and administrative authorities, meanwhile, face the task of ensuring that public order is maintained without unnecessarily restricting lawful political activity.

The Islamabad High Court's involvement adds a legal dimension to the situation.

Rather than allowing the issue to develop only after the protest begins, the court has chosen to examine the concerns surrounding government resources and public rights in advance.

Conclusion

The Islamabad High Court's proceedings concerning PTI's planned September 27 Islamabad march have placed the use of government resources at the centre of an important constitutional and administrative debate.

The court has stressed that government resources and officials cannot be used for political protests and has sought clarification from senior provincial and federal officials regarding their responsibilities.

PTI, for its part, has maintained that the September 27 march will be peaceful and that government resources will not be used. PTI leaders have described the mobilisation as a political campaign focused on the release of Imran Khan, access for his family and legal representatives, and broader demands concerning justice and democratic rights.

The case also highlights a wider democratic principle: political parties can engage in political activity, while public institutions and government resources must operate according to the law and in the public interest.

The coming court proceedings will therefore be closely watched. The IHC may provide further clarity on the responsibilities of provincial governments, police authorities and administrative officials ahead of the September 27 mobilisation.

For Islamabad residents, businesses and authorities, the main concern will remain maintaining normal life and public safety. For PTI supporters, the focus will remain on their political demands and the right to peaceful political expression.

The final direction of the situation will depend on the court's orders, the actions of government authorities and PTI's organisational decisions as September 27 approaches. For now, the central issue before the Islamabad High Court remains clear: how can a major political protest take place while ensuring that public resources are not diverted from government responsibilities and that the rights of citizens are protected?