During the hearing on Friday, KP Advocate General Utmankhel argued that an appropriate legal remedy was available to the petitioner before the Islamabad chief commissioner and that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the high court under Article 199 of the Constitution — under which a high court may take up a matter if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law — could not be invoked in the present circumstances

News Desk

ISLAMABAD, SEPT 11: /DNA/ – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Advocate General Shah Faisal Utmankhel on Thursday questioned the maintainability of a petition filed in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against the PTI’s planned protest in the federal capital on Sept 27.

The PTI has announced a nationwide protest on Sept 27 to demand the release of party founder Imran Khan and mobilise people for the supremacy of the Constitution.

A citizen, Waqas Ahmed, has challenged the planned move on the grounds that the protest could disrupt routine life, traffic and business activities in the federal capital. A larger bench, headed by IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, is hearing the case.

Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Muhammad Asif are also a part of the bench.

During the hearing on Friday, KP Advocate General Utmankhel argued that an appropriate legal remedy was available to the petitioner before the Islamabad chief commissioner and that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the high court under Article 199 of the Constitution — under which a high court may take up a matter if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law — could not be invoked in the present circumstances.

He also pointed out that the petition was moved against a political party that had not been impleaded as a respondent. He questioned why the PTI had not been made a party to the petition if the proceedings concerned its planned protest, while CJ Dogar asked whether the PTI was actually planning to undertake the long march.

The chief justice further asked the advocate general if he agreed with statements made by KP Chief Minister Sohail Afridi regarding the planned long march. The chief justice, however, did not specifically refer to any particular remarks by the KP CM.

Utmankhel replied that the office of the advocate general was not concerned with the chief minister’s political narrative but only with his official responsibilities.

On the court’s directive, he also read out the oath administered to the KP CM and argued that he had not violated his oath through any of his statements.

Referring to Article 5 of the Constitution, the chief justice asked whether the chief minister was constitutionally bound to remain loyal to the state.

“CM Afridi is very much loyal to the state,” AG Utmankhel replied.

He reiterated that political statements by the chief minister did not fall within the domain of the advocate general’s office, suggesting that the PTI and the chief minister should be impleaded as parties to the petition.

The KP chief secretary was then called to explain the provincial government’s position regarding the planned protest.

He adopted a stance similar to that of the advocate general, saying political statements were dealt with at the party level.

Responding to questions about any instructions having been issued by the chief minister to government officials in connection with the long march, the chief secretary assured the court that KP government officials would not be allowed to act beyond their constitutional limits.