PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on 2 March dismissed petitions that challenged the ban on the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM), labeling them as non-maintainable. Furthermore, the court declared that the petitioners possess the right to approach the federal government’s review committee for the de-proscription of the organisation.
The Release of the Detailed 62-Page Judgement
Specifically, a bench comprising Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal released a detailed 62-page judgement on Thursday. Previously, the bench had issued a short order last month regarding the rejection of two petitions. These legal challenges contested the 2024 proscription of PTM and its leaders by the government.
As a result of the proceedings, the bench reserved its order on Jan 21. This followed the completion of arguments from lawyers who represented both the petitioners and the government.
Also Read: PTI Leaders Join Pashtun Qaumi Jirga, Condemn Violence
Petitions Filed by Manzoor Pashteen and Masoom Shah
Initially, Manzoor Pashteen and nine other leaders jointly filed a petition. They requested that the court declare the PTM ban illegal under Section 11B of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). Additionally, they challenged the listing of petitioners under Section 11-EE.
The petitioners specifically sought court orders to compel the federal government to:
- Remove PTM from the list of banned outfits in the First Schedule of ATA.
- Strike their names from the ATA’s Fourth Schedule.
- Declare that sections 11-B and 11-EE—which the Anti-Terrorism Amendment Act, 2014, amended—conflict with Article 10-A of the Constitution. This article guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process of law.
- Treat Section 11-D, which covers keeping an organisation under observation, as a mandatory precursor to any proscription under Section 11-B.
Meanwhile, PTM member Masoom Shah filed a separate petition. He requested the court to declare the October 6, 2024, Ministry of Interior notification regarding the proscription of the movement as illegal. Notably, the government proscribed the organisation just ahead of the high-profile Pashtun National Jirga (PNJ), which took place in Jamrud, Khyber tribal district, from Oct 11 to 13, 2024.
Also Read: Thousands Defy Ban to Attend Pashtun Qaumi Jirga Against Terrorism
The Court’s Findings on Legal Procedures
In its findings, the bench held that the government complied with the procedural prerequisites for proscription under sections 11B and 11E in both letter and spirit. Moreover, the court held that no jurisdictional or foundational defects vitiated the impugned notification.
“Questions relating to sufficiency or adequacy of material fall within the competence of the statutory review committee,” the court stated.
Consequently, the bench held that the innovation of constitutional jurisdiction at that stage was premature and impermissible, especially since an efficacious alternate remedy exists.
Authority Under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
The verdict highlighted that sections 11B and 11E of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, vest the federal government with the authority to proscribe organisations or individuals. However, the government must first form reasonable grounds to believe the targets concern themselves with terrorism or associate with terrorist elements.
“The statutory scheme is neither unanalysed nor arbitrary,” the judgement reads.
To illustrate the process, the bench found that:
- Administrators processed intelligence inputs and reports.
- The relevant authorities prepared a formal summary.
- The federal cabinet received the matter in exercise of executive authority.
- The government issued a notification in the official gazette.
Judicial Review vs. Executive Satisfaction
Because the proscription takes effect upon publication in the gazette, the legislature included a vital safeguard. Specifically, the legislature engrafted a review committee to examine applications for de-proscription. Therefore, the architecture balances executive necessity with institutional accountability.
During the process, the bench examined the original record with “anxious care.” They found that officials duly initiated and processed the summary. Furthermore, the cabinet convened a meeting, undertook deliberations, met the requisite quorum, and recorded consent on original documents.
“No material has been brought before us to demonstrate fabrication, manipulation or procedural impropriety,” the bench noted. Indeed, the gazette notification followed as a lawful consequence of cabinet approval. Thus, the “procedural spine” of the action remained intact.
Thousands Defy Ban to Attend Pashtun Qaumi Jirga Against Terrorism
Conclusion: The Statutory Remedy
Regarding the petitioners’ claim that the government failed to disclose material establishing anti-state activities, the bench held that judicial review focuses on the legality of the process. It does not allow for the substitution of opinion.
“Where the statues entrust satisfactions to the executive, and where the process leading to the satisfaction conforms to the law, the court does not converts itself into appellate forum to weigh the evidentiary sufficiency ab initio,” the court explained.
Ultimately, the bench concluded that the government observed the statutory procedure and established no foundational illegality. To assume jurisdiction now would bypass and nullify the forum the legislature created. In conclusion, such an approach would erode the “carefully constructed remedial hierarchy.
