IHC Rules: No Party May Occupy Public Roads
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) today delivered a landmark verdict in the long‑standing PTI long march case, affirming that no political party has the right to occupy public roads without explicit permission from the state. The court’s decision, which was handed down after a detailed review of the petition filed by the PTI, underscores the principle that public roads are state property and must not be used for partisan purposes without due legal process.
In its ruling, the IHC highlighted that the PTI’s march, which had taken place across Islamabad and other major cities, was carried out in a manner that violated the Constitution’s provisions on the use of public spaces. The court noted that the march was organized without the necessary permits and that the party’s actions amounted to an “unconstitutional aggression” against the state’s authority to regulate public order. The court further warned that any future attempts by political parties to occupy public roads would be deemed illegal and subject to penalties.
One of the key directives issued by the IHC is that Chief Ministers (CMs) across the country must take immediate steps to prevent the misuse of state machinery in the organization of protests. The court urged that the CM’s office should ensure that any public demonstration is conducted within the bounds of the law, with proper coordination with law enforcement agencies. Failure to comply with these directives could result in the suspension of the party’s political activities in the respective province.
The decision comes at a time when Pakistan’s political landscape is highly polarized, with the PTI and its supporters demanding greater autonomy for political expression. The IHC’s ruling is seen as a reaffirmation of the rule of law and a reminder that the state’s authority over public spaces cannot be overridden by partisan interests. The court’s verdict is expected to have far‑reaching implications for how political parties plan and execute public demonstrations in the future.
Critics of the ruling argue that it may stifle legitimate political dissent, while supporters claim it protects the integrity of public infrastructure and ensures that protests do not disrupt essential services. The IHC’s decision will likely be challenged in higher courts, but for now, it sets a clear legal precedent that no political party may occupy public roads without the state’s explicit approval.
