ISLAMABAD: A division bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday refused to set aside the district administration’s notification for banning the entry of clerics from different schools of thought into the federal capital for a couple of months.

On September 26, the district magistrate of Islamabad had banned the entry of 16 clerics in the limits of the federal capital for two months. The step was taken on the advice of the Special Branch of the police in order to maintain peace and order in the city during Muharram.

According to the notification issued by the district administration of Islamabad, the clerics whose entry has been banned in the federal capital include Hafiz Muhammad Saddique, Allama Tahir Ashraf, Muhammad Illyas Ghuman, Muhammad Muaviah Azam, Abdul Khaliq Rehmani, Dr Khadim Hussain Dhaloo, Aurangzeb Farooqi, Muhammad Yousaf Rizvi, Pir Irfan Al-Mashahdi, Khadim Hussain Rizvi, Asif Ashraf, Allama Ghazanfar Tunsavi, Allama Jaffar Jatoi, Zakir Syed Maqbool Hussain, Hafiz Tassadaq Hussain and Muhammad Iqbal. These clerics belong to the Deobandi, Barelvi and Shia schools of thought.

A petition was filed by the chairman of the Markazi Asna Ashri Trust Imam Bargah and though the petitioner had challenged the notification of September 26, the trust had wanted the court to set aside the ban on Shia clerics only.

The same petition was earlier rejected by IHC’s Justice Noorul Haq Qureshi, holding that the petition was not maintainable and had advised the petitioner to make representation before the district administration.

During the course of the hearing before the division bench consisting of Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Justice Minallah asked the petitioner’s counsel to apprise the court if the clerics had challenged the order in another forum.

When the counsel insisted that the court treat the matter as a special case as the clerics have been invited to deliver routine sermons, the judge replied that the law does not have room for extending favours in special circumstances. “The aggrieved party should have challenged the order as the trust was not the aggrieved party in this case,” he said.

Published in Dawn October 8th, 2016

Opinion

Sub judice rule
18 Sep 2021

Sub judice rule

It is time this objection, sub judice, is laid to rest.
The Black Caps folly
Updated 18 Sep 2021

The Black Caps folly

There is so much wrong — and worrying — about the entire sorry episode of New Zealand backing out of Pakistan tour.
CT NAP revisited
Updated 18 Sep 2021

CT NAP revisited

A policy of appeasement towards extremists has undermined the state’s writ.
Pathways for reform
Updated 17 Sep 2021

Pathways for reform

Even now the government has said they are listening, but they have not said how they are listening.

Editorial

Blinken’s remarks
Updated 18 Sep 2021

Blinken’s remarks

The US establishment cannot scapegoat Pakistan for two decades of bad policy in Afghanistan.
18 Sep 2021

Worrying survey

THE findings of the Labour Force Survey 2018-19 indicate that some important headline trends have already taken or...
18 Sep 2021

Special needs

THE fact that only 3,653 children with special needs, out of some 300,000 in Sindh, are registered with the...
TTP amnesty?
Updated 17 Sep 2021

TTP amnesty?

An amnesty should be for some individuals, not the entire outfit.
17 Sep 2021

Media regulation

THE needless controversy over media regulation may finally be heading for a resolution. In a meeting with ...
17 Sep 2021

Refusing audit

THE continuous resistance put up by several public-sector organisations to submitting their accounts for audit by ...