SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JHELUM and anothers vs GHULAM RAZA and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which allowed a Constitution petition filed by the respondents. The respondents had sought directions allowing them to join the annual Chehlum procession directly from their houses. The High Court permitted them to do so, holding that they had a legal right and that authorities were duty-bound to ensure peaceful conduct. The petitioners, including the Superintendent of Police, contended before the Supreme Court that reasonable restrictions on the freedom of assembly can be imposed under the Constitution due to apprehensions of a breach of peace. Furthermore, the petitioners argued that the High Court improperly entered into disputed questions of fact regarding whether the procession was historically taken out from the respondents' houses. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the High Court erred in resolving factual controversies and overlooking restrictions on freedom of assembly.
- Can the High Court enter into disputed questions of facts in a Constitution petition regarding religious processions?
- What are the permissible limits of reasonable restrictions upon freedom of assembly under Article 16 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Are local authorities justified in refusing a licence for a religious procession due to apprehensions of a breach of peace?
- Article 16, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 20-6-1993.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondents moved a Constitution petition in the High Court for issuance of a direction to the petitioners to allow them to join the main Chehlum procession to be taken out on 25th of Saffar every year. According to the petitioners, the respondents' houses are situated at a short distance from the place where they would join the main procession. The learned High Court allowed the writ petition and made the following observations:-- "In other words, the petitioners had been taking out the procession in the past. The two families consist of 18 Members in all. They would be allowed to join the main procession together from their houses. They have the right to do so under the law. Nobody can stop them from doing so provided they do not violate the law and injure the feelings of other Muslims. It is the duty of the respondents to see to it that the procession of the petitioner commences and ends in peace, and without any interference from any quarters. The learned Magistrate has been asked to immediately call a meeting of the leaders of the two sects to iron out their differences amicably. He has assured the Court to do so. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken serious objections to the above observations made by the High Court. He submitted that reasonable restrictions upon freedom of assembly can be imposed under Article 16 of the Constitution. There was serious apprehension of breach of peace, therefore, the respondents were not allowed to take procession from their houses, though no restriction was imposed on them for joining the main procession. It was also disputed that the respondents ever joined the main procession from their houses. After considering the merits of the case, licence was not issued to the respondents. There was no violation of law or Constitutional provisions, which necessitated the passing of the impugned judgment. The procession was never taken out from 1978 to 1992. The petitioners had not accepted that such procession was being taken for the last 50 years. There was factual controversy and the learned High Court has entered into the disputed questions of facts.
' Leave is granted to consider the above contentions.