PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court on Wednesday reserved its order over pleas against placing ban on Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) and several of its leaders including its chief Manzoor Ahmad Pashteen by the government in 2024.

A bench consisting of Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal heard detailed arguments advanced by lawyers representing the petitioners as well as that of the additional attorney general, Sanaullah, in support of their contentions.

Early this month, the AAG had submitted a sealed report to the court stating that it included sensitive information and was for the perusal of court. The bench was hearing two almost identical petitions.

One of the petition was jointly filed by Manzoor Pashteen and nine other leaders, requesting the court to declare illegal ban on PTM under Section 11B of Anti-Terrorism Act and the petitioners under Section 11-EE.

Petitioners term movement non-violent, govt’s move illegal

The petitioners have sought court’s orders for federal government to remove PTM from the list of banned outfits in First Schedule of ATA and their names from the ATA’s Fourth Schedule.

They also requested the court to declare that sections 11-B and 11-EE, amended through Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Act, 2014, were in conflict with Article 10-A of the Constitution that guaranteed the right to fair trial and due process of law.

The petitioners have sought orders for Section 11-D of the law, which deals with keeping of an organisation under observation, to be read as a mandatory precursor to proscription under Section 11-B.

The other petition was filed by a member of PTM, Masoom Shah, requesting the court to declare the Oct 6, 2024, notification of the ministry of interior about proscribing the movement as illegal.

AAG Sanaullah contended that those petitions were not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed.

He argued that statutory provisions were available to petitioners in terms of Section 11-C of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, by filing a review application in writing in the first instance before the federal government through ministry of interior against the impugned notification, whereby PTM was declared a proscribed organisation.

He said that in the second instance the petitioners could file an appeal before the high court against refusal of their review application. He claimed that PTM leaders were involved in anti-stated activities as they were delivering hate speeches in their meetings against Pakistan.

He questioned as to why PTM was not registering itself with Election Commission of Pakistan if it called itself a political organisation.

Advocates Attaullah Kundi, Jehanzeb Mehsud and Shah Mohammad appeared for the petitioners and said that PTM was a civil and non-violent social movement that had been advocating for the rights of Pakhtuns since its formation in 2014.

They said that unlike violent or militant movements in the region, PTM had drawn inspiration from advocate of non-violence Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and consistently stood against violence.

Mr Kundi said that PTM organised Pashtun National Jirga from Oct 11 to Oct 13, 2024, in Khyber tribal district to provide a platform to Pakhtuns to demand ‘justice and accountability’.

However, he said that to the utter shock of the petitioners, federal government issued the impugned notification on Oct 6, 2024, to ban PTM, while the petitioners and several other leaders of the organisation were ‘proscribed’ under Section 11-EE with their names placed in Fourth Schedule of ATA.

He contended that PTM didn’t require registration with ECP as it was a movement and not a political party.

He contended that federal government banned PTM, claiming that federal cabinet approved it, but it neither made the cabinet’s decision public nor it shared the grounds for ban with his clients.

The lawyer argued that a 2014 amendment to ATA empowered government to ban an organisation on ex parte basis without providing an opportunity of hearing to it, but that provision was unconstitutional and against the principle of natural justice.

He said that from the very beginning, they had been demanding that they should be informed about the grounds for proscription of the organisation, but the government had not been giving them any information in that regard.

Published in Dawn, January 22nd, 2026