IHC forms larger bench to hear plea against PTI's Sept 27 protest

IHC forms larger bench to hear plea against PTI's Sept 27 protest.

Key points

• Malik Asad Published September 8, 2026 Updated September 8, 2026 02: 20pm.
• The counsel asserted that they would and produced before the court a letter dated November 21, 2024, issued by the Ministry of Interior.
• When the IHC CJ asked how the petitioner would be affected, the lawyer replied that the protest had been confirmed by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi.
• Terming the planned protest "illegal", he recalled the Nov 2024 protest by the PTI.
• He referred to the legal framework governing protests in Islamabad and questioned whether the protesters would enter Islamabad on Sept 27 with administration machinery with them.

Malik Asad Published September 8, 2026 Updated September 8, 2026 02: 20pm. Join our Whatsapp Channel. Add Dawn as a trusted source.

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday decided to form a larger bench to hear a petition against the PTI's planned Sept 27 protest, terming the matter sensitive and observing that it could have constitutional implications.

Notably, the IHC additionally issued notices to the police chiefs of all four provinces, among other office-holders, seeking their attendance at the next hearing on Sept 10.

Meanwhile, the PTI has confirmed a nationwide protest on Sept 27 to demand the release of party founder Imran Khan and mobilise individuals for the supremacy of the Constitution.

For context, a citizen, Waqas Ahmed, has challenged the planned move in the IHC on the grounds that the protest could disrupt routine life, traffic and business activities in the federal capital.

Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar took up the plea on Tuesday, with the petitioner's lawyer, Akhtar Chheena, informing the court that his client was a trader in Islamabad and would be "directly affected" by the planned protest.

When the IHC CJ asked how the petitioner would be affected, the lawyer replied that the protest had been confirmed by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi. This person planned to lead the demonstration in Islamabad.

This could disrupt businesses and normal life in the capital, he explained.

For context, the lawyer out newspaper clippings containing statements attributed to the KP CM and argued that a number of cases against PTI leaders were already pending in courts.

"All these cases have to be decided according to law, " the lawyer stressed, arguing that if pressure through street protests was accepted as a means of obtaining relief in one case, individuals nationwide with cases pending in court could apply the same means.

He additionally voiced worries regarding the possibility of an attack on Rawalpindi's Adiala jail – where Imran is incarcerated – asking whether a plan similar to the May 9, 2023 attack at the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi could be carried out.

As they famously came to be known as, saw more than 10, 000 PTI protesters surge into Islamabad, defying a ban on public gatherings and a lockdown to skirmish with 20, 000 security forces enlisted to turn them back, november 26 protests. A day of clashes between security forces and protesters in the city's Red Zone had concluded in the PTI leadership's hasty retreat.

According to Lawyer Chheena, casualties were additionally documented in the incident. He remarked three Rangers personnel had lost their lives and questioned how that happened if the claims that the protesters were unarmed were true.

Citing media reports, he remarked the protest caused losses of around Rs240 million. He argued that political pressure "should not be used to get judicial relief".

"The only purpose is to exert pressure and obtain relief, " the counsel alleged.

Meanwhile, the lawyer contended that the Constitution allowed the administration to impose "lawful restrictions" on protests.

At that, CJ Dogar repeated the question, asking whether the protesters would have the KP government's machinery.

Notably, the counsel asserted that they would and produced before the court a letter dated November 21, 2024, issued by the Ministry of Interior. He argued that despite the federal government's communication, administration machinery had allegedly been employed during the 2024 protest.

In practice, the lawyer further asserted that, so far, no application had been submitted before the Islamabad district magistrate, seeking permission for the planned protest.

He further contended that Imran was a convicted prisoner and that two cases concerning him were pending before the IHC. He out the orders passed in the £190m Al-Qadir Trust case and argued that the court had repeatedly asked Imran's counsel to advance arguments on the appeal against his conviction, but arguments had not been concluded.

"This is his position in a legal matter before this court, " the counsel remarked.

He then questioned whether the administration could direct a court to suspend a sentence in an appeal merely as two million individuals came out in backing of the convict.

"Can the administration direct the court to suspend the sentence in an appeal? Is this feasible?" the counsel asked and asserted that the Constitution clearly provided for the independence of the judiciary.

Referring to political developments in other provinces, the counsel remarked a march had additionally taken place in Sindh and KP authorities had confirmed that facilities would be provided to the protesters.

He again argued that the courts could matter guidelines regarding protests, but such arrangements could not be employed to provide relief to individuals facing criminal cases.

After hearing the initial arguments, CJ Dogar observed that the matter was sensitive and had constitutional implications.

Notably, the court consequently decided to constitute a larger bench to hear the petition and issued notices to the relevant parties, including the attorney general for Pakistan, chief secretaries and inspectors general (IG) of all four provinces, the Islamabad chief commissioner, Islamabad deputy commissioner and Islamabad IG.

Notably, the court summoned these authorities in their personal capacity and additionally directed the advocates general of the four provinces and Islamabad to appear before it at the next hearing on September 10.

Malik Asad is an Islamabad-based reporter for Dawn with two decades of experience covering legal affairs, judicial developments, and the civil bureaucracy. He can be discovered on X at @asadrp.

Taken together, the developments around IHC forms larger bench to hear plea against PTI' s Sept 27 protest point to a situation that is still moving, and the coming days should bring more clarity.