LHC disposes of PTI petition for rally at Minar-i-Pakistan after DC refuses permission

The Lahore High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) that sought permission to hold a public rally at Minar-i-Pakistan. The court's decision came after it was informed that the deputy commissioner had refused the request.

“

permission for the rally could not be granted in view of potential terrorist threats in Lahore.

The PTI had announced plans for nationwide protests to mark three years since the imprisonment of its founder, Imran Khan, demanding his release. A gathering in Peshawar was slated to be the campaign's centerpiece.

During the hearing, Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf directed a law officer to obtain instructions from the deputy commissioner. Upon the hearing's resumption, the law officer stated that the deputy commissioner had rejected the application at a high-level meeting, citing potential terrorist threats in Lahore as the reason for denial.

“

under what law the court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, could grant permission to hold a public gathering when the deputy commissioner had decided the matter.

The judge questioned the petitioner's counsel about the legal basis for the court to grant permission for a public gathering when the deputy commissioner had already made a decision. The court ultimately disposed of the plea, advising the lawyer that challenging the deputy commissioner's order would be the appropriate legal remedy if the petitioner felt aggrieved.

“

advised the lawyer to challenge the deputy commissioner’s order if the petitioner felt aggrieved, observing that it would be the appropriate legal remedy.

In his petition, PTI Lahore President Mian Akram Usman had stated that he submitted a request for a no-objection certificate on July 22, offering assurances of full compliance with security and administrative protocols. He alleged that despite follow-ups, the deputy commissioner's office had neither granted nor formally refused the request, resorting instead to delaying tactics and administrative silence. The petitioner argued that this inaction amounted to an indirect refusal that infringed upon fundamental rights, including due process, peaceful assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of expression.

“

this inaction amounted to an indirect refusal that infringed on the petitioner’s fundamental rights, which protect due process, peaceful assembly, freedom of association and freedom of expression.