PESHAWAR — The Peshawar High Court has asked the Attorney General’s Office to respond to petitions filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf challenging the imposition of governor’s rule and a state of emergency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, adjourning proceedings until November 10.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Faheem Wali heard the separate petitions submitted by PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Khan and Advocate Salman Khan. The petitioners are seeking to have the measures declared unconstitutional and struck down.
Federal Government Cites Security Concerns
The federal government imposed governor’s rule and emergency in the province on October 11, citing a rise in terrorist incidents and what it described as the provincial government’s insufficient cooperation in counterterrorism efforts. Under the arrangement, KP Governor Faisal Karim Kundi assumed responsibility for administering the province on behalf of the federal government, supported by an 11-member technocratic advisory council.
Petitioners Allege Wide-Ranging Actions
During Tuesday’s hearing, Barrister Gohar told the court that governor’s rule and the emergency were imposed simultaneously, alongside the formation of the advisory council and the transfer of 38 deputy commissioners. He further alleged that 12 PTI members of the National Assembly and 13 members of the provincial assembly had been abducted.
The PTI chairman also claimed that party offices had been demolished and plaques commemorating development projects damaged, alleging discriminatory treatment of his party.
Constitutional Arguments Advanced
Earlier, counsel for the petitioners argued that a constitutional emergency could only be imposed in circumstances involving war or external aggression, neither of which, he maintained, existed in the province. The lawyer said the provincial government had the authority to address terrorism and questioned why emergency measures had not been introduced during earlier periods when terrorist activity was at its peak.
Referring to Article 234 of the Constitution, the counsel contended that the provision could be invoked only when a provincial government was unable to function. He maintained that both the provincial government and the assembly remained operational, with no constitutional breakdown to justify emergency measures.
Court Seeks Attorney General’s Reply
After hearing the arguments, Justice Ijaz Anwar stated that the court would seek the attorney general’s response. The bench subsequently issued a notice to the Attorney General’s Office and adjourned further proceedings until November 10.
