PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has upheld the order of government to place ban on Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) and several of its leaders including its chief Manzoor Ahmad Pashteen.

A bench consisting of Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal pronounced a short order of rejecting two petitions that challenged proscription of PTM and its leaders by the government in 2024.

Detailed judgement will be released later by the court. The bench had reserved its order on Jan 21 after completion of arguments by the lawyers representing petitioners and government.

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 petitioners under Section 11-EE.

PHC issues short order, rejects petitions against govt’s proscription order of 2024

The petitioners had 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.

They had 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. The organisation was proscribed ahead of a high-profile Pashtun National Jirga (PNJ) held in Jamrud, Khyber district, from Oct 11 to 13, 2024.

During course of hearing, the additional attorney general, Sanaullah, contended that the 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 federal government through ministry of interior against the impugned notification, whereby PTM was declared a proscribed organisation.

He said that in the second instance petitioners could file an appeal before high court against refusal of their review application. He claimed that PTM leaders were involved in anti-state 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. Last month, the AAG had also submitted a sealed report to the court, stating that it included sensitive information and was for the perusal of court.

Petitioners’ lawyers including Attaullah Kundi, Jehanzeb Mehsud and Shah Mohammad stated 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.

Lead counsel Mr Kundi 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 questioned the constitutionality of Sections 11B and 11EE, stating that those provisions violated Article 10A of the Constitution by allowing proscription without notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard, making them void under Article 8.

He said that PTM organised PNJ in 2024 to provide a platform to Pakhtuns to demand ‘justice and accountability’. However, he said, to the utter shock of petitioners, federal government issued the impugned notification on Oct 6, 2024, to ban PTM, while 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 said 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 counsel said that from the very beginning, petitioners 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, February 5th, 2026