BEFORE THE HON‘ ‘BLE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN , (Original Jurisdiction Const. Petition No. ____ pga Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Through its Additional Secreta: General 0; Plot #1-A, Street # 32, 6-8/4, ee Islamabad ——————Pretitioner Versus Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary Ministry of Interior, R Block, Pak Secretariat, Constitution Avenue, Islamabad * AND OTHERS ——Respondents CONSTITUTION PETITION UNDER ART.184(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Counsel for the Petitioners Uzair Karamat Bhandari, ASC Barrister Gohar Khan, ASC INDI SH Document Date | Page 1. _| Constitution Petition under Art.184(@) of the Const 22-05-2023 | 1-16 2 | Onder of Lahore High Court dt.10-02-2023 in WP.5851/23 (A) | 10-0220B | “17-32 3. | Order of Supreme Court dt.01-03-2023 in Const P.00/23 (AD) | 01-03-2003 | 3345 4. | Order of Supreme Court dt.04-04-2023 in Const.P.05/23 (A/D) | 04-04-2023 | 4651 5.__| News clipping - Respondents refusal to hold election (B) | —— | S271 6._ | Order of S.Ct in Cr.Misc.641723 in CrP.NIL/23 (C) 11-05-2033 | 72-74 7._| News clippings showing protests (D) —_ | 0 8." | Letter of KPK Govt re Armed Forces in aid of cioll power (E) | 10-05-2023 | 91-92 9._ | Imposition of Art.245 in KPK & Punjab (F) 10-05-2023 | 93 10. | News of Art.245 imposition in Balochistan & ICT (G&h) _ 94-100 UA, | Screen shots of violent treatment of protesters & News (D), Q) — | 101-123 12. | Affidavit of Facts & Service 22-05-2023 | 124-125 (Certified that T have myself prepared this Point Noted Tndex ands found correct) Muhammad Sharif Janjua Advocate-on-Recordcs ( — BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT PRE OF PAKISTAN (Original Jurisdiction) Sete Constitutional Petition No.__/2023, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf ‘Through its Additional Secretary General Omar Ayub Khan, Plot #1-A, Street # 32, G-8/4, Islamabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1, Federation of Pakistan through a. Ministry of Interior, through its Secretary, R Block, Pak Secretariat, Constitution Avenue, Islamabad, b. Ministry of Law and Justice, through Secretary, Law and Justice Division, Pak Secretariat, Constitution Avenue, Islamabad. Ministry of Defence, through its Secretary, Pak Secretariat No. Il, Adam Jee Road, Cant, Saddar, Rawalpindi d. Secretary, Cabinet Division « 2. Province of Punjab, through x. Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Mall Rd. Lahore & Home Departinent, through its Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore 3, Province of Balochistan, through "in hief Secretary, S&GAD Block, Zarghun Road, Quetta, Balochistan, b. Home Department, through its Secretary, Zarghun Road, Quetta, Balochistan 4. Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through a. Chief Secretary, 134,135 & 136, Industrial Estate Phase V, Hayatabad Peshawar be Home Departeient, through ite Secretary, Police. Lines. 4: Finance Department, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 5, __ Inspector General of Police Punjab, Central Police Office, Bank Road, Lahore 6. Inspector General of Police, Islamabad, Police Lines Headquarters, H-11, Islamabad 7. Inspector General of Police, Balochistan, Central Police Office Balochistan, Shah Rah e Gulistan Road, Quetta 8, Inspector General of Police KPK, Central Police Office, Sahibzada Abdul Qayyum Road, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar RESPONDENTS PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 184(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973 ee ee-2- It is most respectfully submitted as follows: SUMMARY ‘That through the instant petition the Petitioner seeks this Honourable Court's gracious indulgence to adjudicate upon questions of great public importance with ment of the fundamental rights of the people of Pakistah Atticles 9, 10, 10A, 14, 17, 19, 19A, 23 and 25 of the reference to the enforce! guaranteed under, inter alia, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 (“Constitution”), and to pass appropriate orders unger Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Dieta the Armed Forces of Pakistan by the Federal Government to act in aid of calling of civil power under Article 245 of the Constitution in the Islamabad Capital Territory, as well as the Provinces of Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and | ¢ the questions involved in the instant petition have arisen pursuant to the | Balochistan. : | 3. That following the unlawful and invalid arrest of Mr. Imran Khan (Chairman, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf) from the p Court on 09 May 2023, protests broke out all over Pakistan. The Petitioner isa political party and as a political party it ha especially in the face of unlawful and ;remises of the Honourable Islamabad High .s the constitutional right to engage in protest and public gatherings, unconstitutional actions. 4. That the spontaneous and nationwide protests, as were expected under the were brutally repressed. These protests were also manipulated and wds and to circumstances, sabotaged through a deliberate scheme in order to infiltrate the cro carry out acts of arson and violence against public and private property, military offices, and residences of military officers. These elements also incited an already charged gathering to participate in violence. This was done as part of a planned to unleash a brutal crackdown against the scheme to use these events in order Petitioner political party and its workers. 5. That, accordingly, consequent upon the invocation of Article 245 by the Federal Government, the Petitioners are instituting the instant Petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution for the kind consideration of and gracious adjudication by this august Court upon the following questions of law of great public importance involving the enforcement of fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan:-— iii, vii. viii. oo JUESTIONS OF LAW Whether the scope of Article 245 of the Constitution is limited in nature and limited to circumstances where the civil power of the state may be overwhelmed for any reason as Article 245 is not intended to be used for furtherance of the political objectives of an incumbent government? Whether the Federal Government's requisition of the Armed Forces in order to quell and repress their political opponents purely to disable them from exercising their constitutional rights is a gross violation of Article 17 of the Constitution? Whether the use of the excessive force, especially on unarmed protestors, for which there is overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence is a gross violation of inter alia, Articles 4, 9, 10 and 10-A of the Constitution? Whether the use of the armed forces in order to target a political party is a threat to the system of Parliamentary democracy, which is a salient feature of the Constitution of Pakistan? Whether the use of armed forces to single out a political party and launch a crackdown against it is clearly violative of Article 4 of the Constitution which is the bedrock of rule of law, and antithesis to the rule of men in our country and a restraint on the executive and judicial organs of the State to abide by the rule of law? Whether the public’s rights under Articles 15, 16, 17 and 19 of the Constitution remain intact following the invocation of Article 245 of the Constitution? t Whether the use of Article 245 of the Constitution to provide a carte blanche to the law enforcement agencies is a gross violation of Article 245 itself as well as the rights to life, liberty, privacy and freedoms of movement, assembly, association, and speech? Whether the continuation of invoking Article 245 of the Constitution despite the slowdown in the number and intensity of protests all over the country is being used a mere excuse for the armed forces to act inGee: supersession of civil power rather than aid of civil power and violates the true spirit of Article 245? Whether the requisition of armed forces by the Federal Government despite repeated claims that the armed forces and personnel of law enforcement agencies could not be deployed due to the security situation in the country mala fide and in excess of jurisdiction? Whether the trial of civilians through military courts is a clear violation of the Constitutional guarantees of due process and fair trial and violation of Pakistan's existing obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as the jurisprudence developed by this Honourable Court? Whether the direction issued by the Federal Government with respect fo the quantum of aid to be given and the manner in which this assistance is to be rendered by the Armed Forces as a matter of Constitutional duty is within the ambit of the law and the Constitution? ed Actions have deprived the citizens of Pakistan from Whether the Impugné association, equality and access to their constitutional right to life, dignity, protection of property? Whether the Federal Government's support to its political allies who were ed to hold public gatherings at the gate of this Honourable Court allow section 144 of Pakistan Penal Code despite the imposition of Article 245, (’PPC”) and other legal prohibitions demonstrates a clearly discriminatory attitude in violation of Article 25? Whether the Constitution that envisages the right to social, economic and + politcal justice, but this right too, in-effect, stands denied to the people of Pakistan because of the severity of actions and immunities afforded in a mala fide manner and in excess of jurisdiction through the guise of utilising Article 245 of the Constitution? Whether the power to invoke Article 245 of the Constitution has not been rightly exercised by the Cabinet in cases of Punjab and Khyberxvii. xviii. xix. voi LBs Pakhtunkhwa whose constitutional authority is questionable following the lapse of the time period allocated to the carelaker government? Whether the current political propaganda campaign of labelling the Petitioner political party as a ‘terrorist organisation’ is also another tactic of the Respondents to deny the holding of elections and eventually oust the Mr. Imran Khan and the Petitioner political party and from the electoral process? Whether there is a clear contradiction between holding the Petitioner political party responsible for carrying out “terrorist acts’ against state military installations (which the armed forces have to protect in any case) and the stance of the Respondents in invoking Article 245 to allow armed forces to act in aid of civil power for the whole province? Whether chosen representatives are permitted by law to exercise such disproportionate power and authority at the cost of discharge of the people's sacred trust? Whether the invocation of Article 245 of the Constitution in such an arbitrary manner violative of Section 131 Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and Section 4 and 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997? Whether the manner in which the powers under Article 245 have been exercised by the armed forces are non-arbitrary, proportionate and reasonable? Whether the instant petition is thereby competent to be entertained by this Honourable Court? Whether the jurisdiction of the Provincial High Courts is barred by Article 245(8) which is an extraordinary situation and affects the fundamental rights of the population? BRIEF FACTS ‘That the Petitioner is Pakistan’s largest political party and perhaps the only party witha presencein all the Federating units, The Petitioner was elected by the people of Pakistan following the general élections of 2018 to form government and its10. -6- ° Chairman, Mr. Imran Khan served as the Prime Minister of Pakistan from 17 August 2018 till 10 April 2022. ‘That the Petitioner is filing the instant Petition through its Additional Secretary General, Mr. Omar Ayub, who is duly authorized by the Constitution of the Party to institute legal proceedings on its behalf, and who being fully conversant with the facts is competent to depose thereto ‘That Petitioner political party was founded by Mr. Imran Khan in the year 1996 by the name of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (“PTI”). Mr. Imran Khan, is the ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan and Chairman of PTI, the largest political party in Pakistan. He is by far one of Pakistan’s most well-known citizens. He was an international cricketer, regarded as one of the finest all-ounders in the game during the 1970s and 80s and who led Pakistan toits only One-Day International World Cup victory in the year 1992, He is also a well-known philanthropist having established the Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, intially in ed by Peshawar and now the third hospital is under construction in ss cancer hospital and Shaukat Khanum Lahore follow chi, The Shaukat Khanum hospital is a world cla: Kara tment to the needy and the research centre that provides free of cost cancer trea| indigent (as well as to patients who can afford to pay for the treatments). He also established Namal University which confers an international degree level education to students. Thus, ‘Mr. Khan has been in the public eye either as an politician since the last fifty years and has not ‘only athlete, or a philanthropist, or a put constantly strived to serve the people for the brought laurels to his country, betterment of their lives. The Petitioner has also been involved in political struggle and activities since 1996. ‘That the Petitioners’ political struggle has always been to establish democracy and equality of law in the country and to eliminate the menace of corruption. In fact, the very name of the party translates in Englis] rule of law and his struggle has been for ‘has Movement for Justice. Thus, the Petitioner has always advocated for the the establishment of a society where there is rule of law. ‘That over time, the Petitioners’ message and political agenda resonated with the became a threat to the already entrenched political elite of the country neral masses and that had hitherto governed the country. In the year 2013 the PTI won the ge elections in the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and successfully formed its government. During this tenure, the Petitioner amongst other changes, managed to reform the police force by creating checks and balances to ensure fairness for11. 12 13. 14. 15. every citizen and addressed the scourge of terrorism. In the next general elections in 2018, the PTI was not only re-elected in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa but also emerged as the party with the largest number of seats in the National Assembly. Thus, Petitioner No. 1’s Chairman was elected as the 22nd Prime Minister of Pakistan in August 2018, which he remained until April 2022. ‘That since the removal of the Petitioner political party’s government, it has been the subject of a mala fe and relentless campaign of persecution and politcal victimization. Key to this repression has been a denial to the Petitioner political party of the right to protest. Initially, the Petitioner political party had announced a protest long march on 25 May 2022 to Tslamabad in order to protest against the government and to demand free and fair elections in the country. The night before the protest and on the day itself the homes of political workers were raided, their family members harassed, vehicles vandalized, and the participants of the march were beaten and assaulted - all to prevent their participation in the protest. This was a blatant violation of the Constitutional guarantees of the freedoms of assembly, movement, association, and speech. “That when such heavy-handed tactics of suppression and oppression failed to dent the popularity and resolve of the people, the incumbent government resorted to a concerted effort, patently minla fide, to disqualify, arrest, sn order to eliminate him from the political arena by any means necesSa1y- or convict Mr. Imran Khan ‘That thus, all the investigative and coercive machinery of the state was deployed to target Mr. Imran Khan and the Petitioner political party, its political supporters and associates, and anybody who dared to stand up in support. ‘That when the Petitioner political party gave a call for a second! long march in November 2022, the long march was subject to a bid to assassinate the Chairman of the PTL. Thirteen individuals were injured, and one person tragically lost his life in the unfortunate incident on 03 November 2022 at Wazirabad. ‘That the desperation and willingness of the Respondents to go to any lengths, including resorting to blatant defiance of the Constitution and this Honourable Court, became apparent when the Chief Ministers of the provinces of Punjab and Khyber Patkhtunkhwa advised their respective Governors to dissolve the provincial assemblies and they were dissolved in January 2023. Article 224(2) imposes a constitutional obligation that in case of early dissolution of assemblies,16. 17. -4- general elections to such assemblies are required to be held within ninety days. Despite the lapse of ninety days, and despite the orders of the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 10 February 2023 in Pakistan Teleek-e-Insnaf vs. Governor Punjab (PLD 2023 Lah 179) and this Honourable Court in S.M.C. No. 01/2023 on 01 March 2023 and in Const. Petition No. 05/2023 on 04 April 2023 no elections are in sight. (Copies of judgments/orders dated 10 February 2025 of the Honourable Lahore High Court, 01 March 2023 and 04 April 2023 of this Honourable Court are placed herewith as Annexures A, A/1, and A/2) ‘That it is clear that the incumbent Federal government and their proxy set ups in the provinces of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have no intentions of conducting general elections on time as mandated by the Constitution. This is so even at the cost of violating the constitution and adopting confrontation with the The only reason behind the steadfast refusal to hold litical party will be re-elected. As a result judicial organ of the state. elections is the fear that the Petitioner po of the Respondents’ unconstitutional refusal to hold elections, they have sought to find ways and means to either disqualify, arrest the leadership of, or ban the Petitioner political party. Having failed consistently in their efforts to do so, they have now sought to mis-use the device of Article 245 of the Constitution, in the aftermath of the events of 09 May 2023, to politically victimize and crackdown on Pakistan's largest political party. (News Clippings showing the clear stance of the Responder are enclosed herewith as Annexure B) sits of refusal to hold elections ‘That at around 2:15 pm on 09 May 2023, when Mr. Imran Khan was due to appear before the Islamabad High Court, around 100 security personnel (Rangers) attacked the biometric room of the said court, vandalizing and ransacking it in order to execute warrants of arrests reportedly issued by NAB authorities. Several lawyers were severely assaulted along with the court staff present in the biometric room and Mr. Imran Khan was forcefully abducted from the court in the most condemnable circumstances. It is noteworthy to mention that this arrest was subsequently declared unlawful and invalid by this Honourable Court vide order dated 11 May 2023 in Criminal M. A. No. 641/2023 in Criminal Petition No. Nil of 2023 titled Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi vs. The State. (A copy of the order of the Supreme Court dated 11 May 2023 is enclosed herewith as Annexure C)18. 19. 21. -4 at ‘That following his unlawful and abduction, and the shocking manner in which hi : e was whisked away from the premises of a constitutional court, spontaneous protests broke out across Pakistan including in Lahore, Islamabad, Karachi etc. (News Clippings of the protests are enclosed herewith as Annexure D) That it is worth mentioning that the supporters of the Petitioner political party are no strangers to public protests. The Petitioner has always been a peaceful political party. Despite several provocations over the last year ‘such as the brutal crackdown prior to 25 May 2022, and the attempt on the life of the Chairman of the Petitioner, whenever there has been a risk of violence or a violent showdown with law enforcement agencies, the Petitioner has always opted to takea path that prevents violence. the constitutional right of the supporters of the ke part in the peaceful public protests against e Chairman of the Petitioner. Unfortunately, That similarly, the expectation and Petitioner political party was to tal the unlawful and invalid arrest of the and strangely, the protests were infiltrated and engineered to incite the charged nd arson and direct the same against public property and residence / offices of military officers. ‘The Petitioner political party has already officially condemned all acts of violence, and has called for an tion into how the protests became violent. \dependent, and impartial investigal crowds to participate in violence a ‘That in fact it seems that the protests were deliberately sabotaged in order to take advantage of the political situation al crackdown against the Petitioner polit nd to use that as a ruse to target and Iaunch a tical party and its workers. It is inconceivable that heavily protected military offices and installations remained unprotected at that critical time. ‘That true to form, in response to the protests on 10 May 2023 the Federal Government, in purported exercise of their powers under Article 245 of the Constitution and Section 4(3)(ii) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 authorized the deployment of Pakistan Army trooj nce in aid of civil power pursuant to the request ps / assets for maintaining the law-and-order situation across the Punjab provi made by the Home Department, Government of Punjab vide letter dated 10 May 2023, Similarly, the government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) placed a request for requisition of armed forces in aid of civil power under Article 245 of the Constitution vide letter dated 10 May 2023, which was acceded to. Various news reports / television channels also confirmed that the Armed Forces had been24, requisitioned in aid of civil power under Article 245 of the Constitution in the Islamabad Capital Territory and the province of Balochistan. It may be mentioned that there is nothing on the record as to whether the Provincial cabinets approved the request for deployment of the armed forces pursuant to Article 245 of the Constitution. It may also be mentioned that the cabinets in those provinces are caretaker cabinets whose role is interim in nature and intended for the holding of elections, The cabinets in those provinces are not from among the chosen representatives of the people. (Copies of the order and the letter dated 10 May 2023 are enclosed herewith as “Annexures E and F’) (News Clippings / Notifications of the imposition of Article 245 in Islamabad and Balochistan are enclosed herewith as ‘Annexures Gand H’ ‘That a brutal crackdown against the Petitioner political party has been launched subsequent to the calling of the Armed Forces in aid of civil power. Thousands of workers and political supporters have been arrested. Law enforc have entered into people's homes and caused damage to private property. ‘As per ue to use of excessive ement agencies unconfirmed reports dozens of people have lost their lives d forces by law enforcement agencies. Due to the internet and social media shutdowns in those days there is an information blackout on the casualties caused by law enforcement agencies. The leadership of the Petitioner party has been detained or arrested. They have been re-arrested even when a court has ordered their release. Women and children have been brutally assaulted and dragged on streets by their hair. Ladies have been detained and kept in poor conditions causing health issues. Such treatment of women, and such excessive use of force is entirely unconstitutional. It may be noted that most people who participated in protests since 09 May 2023 were peaceful protestors engaging ina constitutionally protected activity. Therefore, there is no lawful and constitutional justification to go after innocent public protestors. (Screenshots of aw enforcement agencies and their heavy handed and violent treatment of protestors is are placed herewith as Annexure I) ‘That the only reason for the massive crackdown against the protestors, workers, and supporters associated with the Petitioner is to spread fear and panic among the supporters of the Petitioner and force them to acquiesce to the unconstitutional actions of the incumbent government by refusing to hold elections (mandated by the Constitution, as well as the Supreme Court) and to eliminate or disqualify Mr. Imran Khan and the Petitioner political party from the electoral sphere.26. 27. -| \~ Dozens of leaders of the Petitioner were arrested, and cases were filed against them for resorting to violent protests, and it is even alleged that most have been mistreated in custody and moved to undisclosed locations by the police. The Petitioner’s senior leaders such as Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Asad Umar, Maleeka Bokhari, Ejaz Chaudhry, Ali Muhammad and Qasim Suri were also arrested following the imposition of Article 245 of the Constitution. Similarly, a number of women were also arrested and taken to undisclosed locations. Former health minister Dr. Yasmin Rashid was also detained. She is a cancer survivor and required medical treatment and hospitalization, yet the law enforcement agencies sought to take her custody from the hospital, which was only denied because the medical board did not allow the police to take her along, Similarly, Dr. Shireen Mazari and Senator Falak Nawaz were also arrested from Islamabad, and although the Islamabad High Court ordered their release, they were re-arrested and shifted to an undisclosed location. Only after further recourse to the Islamabad High Court were they produced and (for the time being) released (and re-arrested again), Mr. Fawad Chaudhary was also arrested from Islamabad from outside the Honourable Islamabad High Court and later released by the order of the Islamabad High Court. However, as he was leaving the premises of that court, the police attempted to re-arrest him. ‘That according to information received, thousands of PTI workers, leaders and individuals associated with them have been arrested. Several people have lost their lives due to the actions of law enforcement agencies and many others have been injured and receiving treatment. That in continuation of the same, the Respondents have now purportedly decided to conduct trials of civilians under the Pakistan Army Act 1952 through military courts. It is unheard that in @ civil society based on the rule of law civilians are tried through military courts only because of their affiliation with a political party. Such an act is in complete violation of fundamental rights and the rule of law. (Copies of the news clippings showing the victimization and arrests of PTIs leaders, workers and supporters are hereby enclosed as ‘Annexures J’) ‘That the calling of the armed forces under Article 245 of the Constitution to purportedly act in aid of civil power is patently mala fe, coram non juice, in excess of jurisdiction, arbitrary, unlawful and unconstitutional, and violative of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution as it has been done purely to politically victimize the Petitioner and to eliminate the Petitioner asa political party. The Petitioner, thus approaches this Honourable Court on inter alia the following“PP GROUNDS That the scope of Article 245 of the Constitution is limited in nature and is limited to circumstances where the civil power of the state may be overwhelmed for any reason. Article 245 is not intended to be used for furtherance of the political objectives of an incumbent government. The Federal Government's requisition of the Armed Forces in order to quell and repress their political opponents purely to disable them from exercising their constitutional rights is a gross violation of Article 17 of the Constitution. ‘That Articles 9, 10, and 10A read with Article 4 of the Constitution guarantee that no action detrimental to the life, liberty and reputation of a person may be taken save in accordance with law. The use of excessive force, especially on unarmed women protestors, for which there is overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence is a gross violation of their right to life, liberty, bodily integrity in violation of “Atticles 4, 9, 10, 10 of the Constitution. Furthermore, these women protestors were exercising their fundamental rights of association and public gathering guaranteed under the Constitution and the brutal manner in which they were attacked, dragged, beaten, and detained as seen on various videos is clearly a gross violation of their fundamental rights. That it may be noted that the public’s sense of grievance and desire to register their protest was rooted in a deep sense of injustice in the manner in which the Chairman of the Petitioner was arrested, which was even declared invalid and unlawful by this Honourable Court. The excessive use of force in the face of protests has resulted in the loss of dozens of lives at the hands of law enforcement agencies, with no accountability for them in sight. The police and civilian forces were fully capable of facilitating and allowing the public to carry out their protest. In such a situation, when the civil forces were not overawed, there is no justification for requisition of the armed forces. That the protests against an unlawful action is now being used as a pretext in order to launch a crackdown against the largest political party in Pakistan and to dismantle it through detention and fear. The use of the armed forces in order to target a political party isa threat to the system of Parliamentary democracy, which is a salient feature of the Constitution of Pakistan. That the use of armed forces to single out a political party and launch a crackdown against it clearly violative of Article 4 of the Constitution which provides that toalc enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every person. It stands at a high pedestal and even outshines fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 9 to 28 of the Constitution, as this right cannot be suspended during the proclamation and imposition of Emergency under Article 233 of the Constitution. It is the bedrock of rule of law, and antithesis to the rule of men in our country and a restraint on the executive and judicial organs of the State to abide by the rule of law. ‘That as held in the case of Sheikh Liaquat Hussain vs. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 1999 SC 504] by the Honourable Supreme Court, the deployment of armed forces in aid of civil power does not provide any additional powers to the armed forces and the fundamental rights as well as constitutional principles that apply to civil power continue to apply in such a situation. Thus, the public's rights under Articles 15, 46, 17 and 19 of the Constitution remain intact. In such a situation there is no justification to use such force against protestors 60 as to result in loss of lives, or to drag women by the hair on the road, or to beat them until their face bleeds, or to manhandle and beat elderly women, inside their homes. The use of Article 245 to provide a carte blanche to the law enforcement agencies is a gross violation of Article 245 itself as well as the rights to life, liberty, privacy and freedoms of movement, assembly, association, and speech. ‘That as held in Darwesh M. Arbey v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 1980 Lahore 206] by the Honourable Lahore High Court that as per Article 245, the scope of calling the army is to act in aid of civil power and not in supersession of the civil power and when the army therefore is called in aid of civil power itcannot replace that power, [Article 245 is therefore a check on the armed forces as in this way it purports to save the minority from the tyranny of the majority and also save those who oppose the government policies from the wrath of the group in power. Even if the invocation of Article 245 was justified, ils continuation is not as the intensity of the protests has lessened and it is merely being used as an excuse to launch massive crackdowns in their worst form against the leaders, workers and supporters of the Petitioner political party. It is clear from these crackdowns that the armed forces are acting in supersession of civil power rather than aid of civil power. That quite interestingly, the Respondents had been claiming before this Honourable Court in the matter of holding elections that the armed forces and personnel of law enforcement agencies could not be deployed due to the security situation in the country. However, interestingly, suddenly in response to the(4-4 protests enough armed forces personnel were found available in order control the situation indefinitely in three territories in Pakistan. The Federal Government which could not call upon the armed forces in order to fulfil a constitutional responsibility and implement an order of this Honourable Court has decided to requisition the armed forces in order to quell and dismantle its political rivals. Under the current circumstances, it is more than obvious to any reasonable observer that the requisition of the armed forces is mula fide and in excess of jurisdiction. That the trial of civilians through military courts is a clear violation of the Constitutional guarantees of due process and fair trial. Such trials are highly deprecated internationally, and widely considered as falling short of providing a trial, They constitute a violation of Pakistan's obligations under the ational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which has been fair Intern ratified by the country. Even domestically, .d such practice. The trial of thousands of workers of a political party (or this Honourable Court has repeatedly deprecate 4 political leader) through such courts is unheard of inthe history ofthis country. In the limited circumstances in which military courts for civilians were utilized, this required a constitutional amendment (which has since lapsed) and was in relation to hardcore terrorists. The workers and supporters now sought to be tried through military courts are not part of any terrorist organisation and pose no threat to national security. Thus itis contrary to the Constitution to try civilian protestors through military courts. ‘That whilst, under Article 245, civil power is to be preserved and invigorated through the instrumentality of the Armed Forces. The quantum of aid to be given and the manner in which this assistance is to be rendered by the Armed Forces as ‘a matter of Constitutional duty depends upon the nature of the direction issued by the Federal Government in this bel the ambit of the law and the Constitution. yhalf and such direction should also be within: ‘That in light of the provisions of Articles 9, 14, 17, 19, and 23, the Impugned Actions have deprived the citizens of Pakistan from access to their constitutional right to life, dignity, association, equality and protection of property. In addition thereteo, the Petitioner observed that political parties that have the support and alliance of the Federal Government were allowed to hold public gatherings at the gate of this Honourable Court despite the imposition of Article 245, section 144 of-|$+ Cr PC and other legal prohibitions. Thus clearly there is a discriminatory attitude in violation of Article 25 that is at play. ‘That the Constitution envisages the right to social, economic and political justice, but this right too, in-effect, stands denied to the people of Pakistan because of the severity of actions and immunities afforded in a mala fide manner and in excess of jurisdiction through the guise of Article 245 of the Constitution. ‘That the power to invoke Article 245 of the Constitution has not been rightly exercised by the Cabinet which has to approve / authorise the request made by the Provincial Governments of the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in whose case their constitutional authority is questionable following the lapse of the time period allocated to the caretaker government. ‘That the current political propaganda campaign of labelling the Petitioner political party as a ‘terrorist organisation’ is also another tactic of the Respondents to deny the holding of elections and eventually oust the Mr. Imran Khan and the Petitioner political party and from the electoral process. ‘That-there is a clear contradiction between holding the Petitioner political party responsible for carrying out ‘terrorist acts’ against state military installations (which the armed forces have to protect in any case) and the stance of the Respondents in invoking Article 245 to allow armed forces to act in aid of civil power for the whole province. “That the invocation of Article 245 of the Constitution in such an arbitrary manner is also violative of Section 191 Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and Section 4 and 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which provides that the armed forces shall use the necessary force to prevent any prescribed offence. The crackdown launched against the Petitioner political party by means of using excessive force against them under the garb of Article 245 is arbitrary, disproportionate and unreasonable. ‘That considering that the powers and authority exercised by the chosen representatives of Pakistan is vested in them through the agency of the people as a sacred trust within the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah, the chosen representatives cannot be permitted by law to exercise such disproportionate power and authority at the cost of discharge of the people's sacred trust.(6 = R.__ Thatthe instant Petition is thereby competent to be entertained by this Honourable Court under Article 184(8) of the Constitution as Article 245 of the Constitution has been invoked in three of the provinces namely, Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan and the Federal capital, Islamabad, Thus it affects the entire population residing in these territories, covering most of the Federation and the fundamental rights of the people therein thus making it a matter of public importance as it includes the general interest of the community, The use of excessive force, especially on unarmed women protestors, for which there is overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence is a gross violation of their right to life, liberty, bodily integrity in violation of Articles 4 9,10, 10A of the Constitution, thus fulfilling the prerequisites to Article 184(3). 5, ‘That the jurisdiction of the Provincial High Courts is barred by Article 245(3) which is an extraordinary situation and affects the fundamental rights of the population, Furthermore, there is a risk of conflicting judgments in various jurisdictions. Thus the matter is ripe and proper for adjudication by this Honourable Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. PRAYER In view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to declare that the Federal Government's invocation and deployment of the armed forces in aid of civil power ‘under Article 245 of the Constitution in the Islamabad Capital Territory, and the Provinces of Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Balochistan are unlawful and unconstitutional. itis further prayed that this Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to declare that the actions taken pursuant to Article 245 in terms of the brutal ‘crackdown of the Petitioner snd its supporters in the form of detentions, physical violence, {oss of lives, violations of physical dignity, aids into houses and decisions (0 ry civilians through military courts are unconstitutional and unlawful. ‘Any further directions that may be deemed fair and proper to secure rights ofthe people of Pakistan in the light of the facts ‘and circumstances detailed in the instant Petition may glso/be issued’py this august Court. the fundamental Barrister Gohar Uzair Karamat Bhandari, ASC Muhammad Sharif Janjua ‘Advocate-on-Record Dated: 22-05-2023 Certificate: eee First Petition on the subject and no other petition is pending before any other forum on the subject matter. ‘Advocate-on-Record