The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday directed the Additional Deputy Commissioner Lahore to decide on an application regarding the Aurat March after hearing the petitioners’ stance and submit a report by February 6. Justice Anwaar Hussain issued the orders while hearing a contempt of court petition filed by women activists Leena Ghani, Neelum Hussain, Fatima Jaan, and Shireen Umair against Deputy Commissioner Syed Moosa Raza and other officials. During the hearing, Additional Deputy Commissioner General, SP Civil Lines Dr. Abdul Hanan, and a representative from the traffic department appeared alongside Assistant Advocate General (AAG) Muhammad Usman Khan. The AAG informed the court that Lahore is set to host three major international events on the same dates: a Triangular Cricket Series, the ICC Champions Trophy, and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference. At this, the court remarked that significant events should not lead to the suspension of other activities, stating, “The world experiences both joy and sorrow simultaneously; governance means managing everything side by side.” However, the AAG argued that the case does not qualify as contempt of court since the application had not been dismissed and was still under review alongside other major events. The court, however, criticized the administration for delaying action, pointing out that the petitioners had approached the court in a timely manner. The AAG suggested that the petitioners meet with district authorities to discuss the matter and devise an acceptable plan. In response, the court questioned whether the authorities had invited the petitioners for discussions earlier. Subsequently, the court ordered the Additional Deputy Commissioner to hear the petitioners’ stance today and make a decision on the application regarding the Aurat March, with a final report due on February 6. The petitioners had approached the court seeking contempt proceedings against district authorities for failing to implement a 2023 court order related to the Aurat March. They argued that their application to hold the event on February 12 this year was not being processed by district authorities despite the 2023 court order. They further contended that the respondent authorities were employing delaying tactics and failing to follow the procedure previously adopted in compliance with the court’s directive.