The Supreme Court on Wednesday reached a verdict on a suo motu notice of the 2017 Faizabad sit-in staged by the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pak*is*tan (TLP).
The apex court had issued notices to the Attorney General of Pakistan, the Inspector General of Police for Islamabad, the secretary interior, the secretary defence as well as the secretary of the Election Commission of Pakistan.
The leaders of the TLP were taken into custody by the authorities after they launched another sit-in, this time against the backdrop of Oct 31, 2018, Supreme Court judgement of acquitting blasphemy accused Aasia Bibi.
An anti-terrorism court in Lahore has already extended till Feb 8 the judicial remand of TLP leader Khadim Hussain Rizvi, who is facing several charges for damaging public property and vandalism during violent protests staged after the apex court’s judgement in the blasphemy case.
Case history
On Nov 22, 2018 a two-judge Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Musheer Alam had reserved the judgement and closed the hearing of the case that was initiated on a suo motu on Nov 21, 2017 ─ after dishing out severe criticism to the attorney general, media regulator and other stakeholders.
The court took up the case after taking notice of the traffic congestion arising out of the sit-in and summoned a report from the ministries of interior and defence, Intelligence Bureau and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
While initiating the case, the court regretted the use of abusive, filthy and provocative language by the leaders of the sit-in and held that this tended to promote enmity.
The legal observers believe that in its judgement the bench may come up with certain guidelines for ensuring that normal life of citizens was not disrupted due to such protests and about the role of the law enforcement agencies and the media.
The issue cropped up when, during the hearing of a case in 2017, the same bench noticed an application seeking adjournment on behalf of senior counsel Mohammad Ibrahim Satti, who was representing petitioner Sher Jamal.
The application for adjournment was moved by Advocate on Record Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah on the grounds that the counsel could not reach the courthouse because he lived in the area that had been blocked off due to the sit-in.
At this, the court sought the assistance of Deputy Attorney General Sohail Mehmood, who was in attendance, and asked him whether highways and roads could be blocked.
Mehmood replied that he himself was facing tremendous difficulties in reaching the court. He had left his home early in the morning (at about 6.30am) to reach the court in time, he added.
In the order that followed, the apex court regretted that Islamabad and Rawalpindi were being held hostage by a few ‘miscreants’ while the state functionaries appeared to be negotiating with them rather than clearing the way for the public who were being denied access to courts, schools, and places of work, etc.
The court said that people taking part in the sit-in and their leaders were ostensibly advocating a religious cause but had not moved the courts, including the Federal Shariat Court. They were taking the law into their hands and were sowing divisions (‘tafarruqu’) and differences (‘ikhtalafu’) against the clear proclamations by Almighty Allah in Surah Ash-Shura (42) ayat 13 and Surah Al-Imran (3) ayat 103 and ayat 105.
Before reserving its ruling for a final judgement, the Supreme Court had also asked Attorney General Anwar Mansoor to furnish a report on behalf of the federal government about the mandate of ISI.
The directives were issued when a sealed envelope was produced before the court, the contents of which were not even shared with DAG Mehmood.
Justice Isa then regretted that the premier spying agency had only enclosed a copy of one of the apex court’s orders in the sealed envelope.
The attorney general, however, said he would furnish the reply in writing, which should be treated as classified. That report was later submitted to the court.
How it happened
Daily life in Islamabad was disrupted for 20 days (from Oct 2 to Nov 27, 2017) when protesters belonging to religiopolitical parties ─ including the TLP, Tehreek-i-Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah (TLYRA), the Tehreek-i-Khatm-i-Nabuwwat, and the Pakistan Sunni Tehreek ─ occupied the Faizabad Interchange which connects Rawalpindi and Islamabad through the Islamabad Expressway and Murree Road, both of which are the busiest roads in the twin cities.
The agitators believe that during the passage of Elections Act 2017, the Khatm-i-Nabuwwat oath was deliberately modified as part of a larger conspiracy. The amendment to the oath was deemed a 'clerical error' by the government and was subsequently rectified through an Act of Parliament.
The government had attempted to negotiate with the protesters to end the sit-in several times, but failed each time. Finally, it launched an operation to disperse the protesters, in which at least six people were killed and scores others injured. After the botched operation, the government decided to call in the army for help. When the army refused, the government turned towards negotiations with the protesters once more, and accepted a number of their demands in return for ending the protest.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1462170/supreme-court-reaches-verdict-on-tlps-2017-faizabad-sit-in
