The Supreme Court in its judgment said that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was disappointed to see the contempt of court’s well-intentioned attempt on the Long March.
The Supreme Court, while issuing a written decision on the petition of the Islamabad Bar regarding the arrest of workers and closure of routes during the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) long march, hinted at action against the PTI leadership.
The 12-page majority judgment was written by Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandial in which it was said that facts need to be verified to know the facts, separate action is required for disregarding court orders and assurances given.
The Supreme Court in its judgment said that it was disappointed to see the contempt of court in good faith. The order of the Supreme Court was to protect the rights of the people between the parties. Was given to create.
The decision said that in the current situation, the moral high ground of the parties has been reduced. It is expected that the PTI leadership and government officials will abide by the fair code of conduct. Peaceful protest is a constitutional right. Is conditional.
In addition, the court ruling said that credible material is needed for independent proceedings, PTI leadership and protesters have ended the protest, there is no obstacle in free movement.
The written decision said that the purpose of filing the petition has been fulfilled, all highways have been opened after the end of the long march, the right to protest should not be curtailed without solid reasons. The judgment, written by Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandial, said that in order to know the facts of any case, it was necessary to have evidence, if any, to identify the instigators.
In addition, the Supreme Court sought reports from DG ISI, IB, IG Islamabad, Chief Commissioner Islamabad on various questions.
In the report sought by the Supreme Court, it was asked when Imran Khan directed the workers to reach D-Chowk. When and how did the people enter the sealed zone? Was the gathering entering the red zone organized or supervised? Did the government take any action against the workers after the incident? How many workers entered the red zone? What arrangements did the security agencies soften? Did the workers break any security barrier? Did any of the workers arrive at G9H Nine Ground? How many civilians were injured or killed or arrested in the incident?
The apex court has sought a report from the concerned agencies on the questions raised within a week.