Summary The bench issued a notice to the Attorney General’s Office and adjourned further proceedings until November 10
PESHAWAR (Dunya News) - The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday sought a response from the attorney general on petitions filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) challenging the imposition of governor’s rule and an emergency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP).
A two-member bench, comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Faheem Wali, heard separate petitions filed by PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Khan and Advocate Salman Khan. The petitioners have asked the court to declare the measures unconstitutional and strike them down.
The federal government imposed governor’s rule and an emergency in KP on October 11, citing an increase in terrorist incidents and the provincial government’s alleged lack of cooperation in counterterrorism efforts.
Following the move, KP Governor Faisal Karim Kundi assumed responsibility for running the province on behalf of the federal government, with the assistance of an 11-member technocratic advisory council.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Barrister Gohar told the court that governor’s rule and the emergency were imposed simultaneously, along with the establishment of the advisory council and the transfer of 38 deputy commissioners.
He also alleged that 12 PTI members of the National Assembly and 13 members of the provincial assembly had been abducted. The PTI chairman further claimed that his party’s offices had been demolished and plaques commemorating development projects had been damaged, alleging discriminatory treatment of the party.
Earlier, the petitioners’ counsel argued that a constitutional emergency could 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 previous periods when terrorism was at its peak.
Referring to Article 234 of the Constitution, the counsel argued that the provision could be invoked only when a provincial government was unable to function.
He maintained that both the provincial government and assembly remained operational, with no constitutional breakdown to justify the imposition of emergency measures.
After hearing the arguments, Justice Ijaz Anwar said 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.
