The Supreme Court’s decision on February 6, 2019 on the Faizabad Dharna is without a doubt a landmark judgment. It is likely to have far-reaching effects on our future political development, provided the ruling government gives its findings and recommendations due importance. After taking into account all the circumstances leading to the Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan’s (TLP) Dharna and examining the evidence and views of all the institutions, the court found that the Election Commission, PEMRA, law enforcement and intelligence agencies — including some Army personnel — failed to perform their functions according to the law and the Constitution. This strengthened this minor gathering of fanatics, allowing them to pose a threat to the state itself. The Court’s primary object was to make the important institutions of the country more accountable to society, prevent the military from dabbling in politics and stopping street power from being used to hold the State hostage. The Court discussed the working of various institutions and underlined their weaknesses and failures with valuable suggestions to improve their working and prevent the recurrence of such ugly situations. The main thrust of the Court’s verdict revolved around the people’s right to assemble, on which presently I want to dwell at some length because all incidents like the Faizabad Dharna take place due to the ignorance of the people about the legal parameters of the exercise of this right. Under the Constitution, every citizen has the right to assemble and protest in a peaceful manner, provided this protest does not infringe on the rights of other citizens — specifically, other citizens’ right to free movement. Therefore, no such assembly should assemble on roads to obstruct the free flow of vehicular traffic. The Court held that to avoid such a risk, specific open places should be earmarked for such protests. The government must ensure that the police and other law enforcement agencies develop standard plans and procedures to effectively deal with rallies, protests and dharnas in the future In Pakistan unfortunately, protests are intentionally held on the roads and public thoroughfares with the avowed object of blocking vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In the course of agitation of this nature, all canons of good civil behaviour are thrown to the winds, freedom of movement of other citizens is obstructed with impunity, and consequently incalculable damage is caused to the lives and properties of the public. This kind of arm-twisting and brazenfaced vandalism on public streets is a criminal act which is absolutely intolerable in any civilized society. In a city like Lahore, the blockade of a few sensitive points like The Mall or the Canal bank is sufficient to cripple and paralyze the entire civic life. As to seeking the prior permission of the authorities, it is said that prior permission for staging their protest is often denied by the government if it considers the demands being made are against its policy. In such a situation, they maintain that they cannot exercise their constitutional right of staging a peaceful protest. But the prior permission for such assemblies is considered essential because it enables the authorities to make necessary arrangements for maintenance of law and order. This practice of prior notice is used all over the world. Good governance demands that such permissions be freely granted by the authorities to enable the people to ventilate their grievances, unless there are strong grounds for suspicion of serious mischief. All democratic countries of the world allow peaceful protests. In Britain, protestors walk in a mass march formation beginning and ending at designated points under the watch of the Riot Police or other law enforcement agencies. In America too, where the right to peaceful agitation is guaranteed through the first amendment to the US Constitution, by also providing that the Congress shall make no law abridging the right of people to assemble. But a sit-in blocking the road is absolutely forbidden. In the court’s verdict, it has also been held that this “right to assembly” should “not be used to bring about a revolution or insurrection.” Certain section of people advance the argument that in the past, all ‘revolutions’ for a positive change in society were brought about through palpable and strong agitation (often violent in nature) which forced the existing order to accede to their demands. When these so called “insurrections” gain full support of the masses, they are termed as ‘revolutions.’ Thus it is thought that only violent protests can bring positive change in society. But history tells us not all changes were effected through force, or force. Though our Constitution does not specifically stipulate a right to protest. However, democracy recognises such a right, and our own history shows that it was through democratic means that Pakistan was achieved. The Quaid e Azam and all members of the Muslim League articulated their demands and peacefully strove to achieve them. They did not exhort their followers to violence. They did not abuse or threaten the British rulers from whom they wanted freedom. The members of Congress never adopted force as a weapon either. The maintenance of public order is the paramount duty of the State. If anyone propagates hatred or contempt against the Federal or Provincial Government he commits the offence of sedition, for which the punishment is imprisonment for life. In the present case, the TLP sowed discord, resorted to mob-rule, rioting and the destruction of property. TLP should understand that the personage of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) for the restoration of whose honour they agitate and fight, never uttered a foul word. Practices like violating the law, occupying public roads, destroying property, and causing death and mayhem is absolutely against the teachings of Islam. In the light of the Court’s observations, the government must ensure that the police and other law enforcement agencies develop standard plans and procedures to effectively deal with rallies, protests and dharnas in the future, so that such ugly situations do not recur. Agencies should vigilantly monitor those advocating hate, extremism and terrorism and prosecute the perpetrators in accordance with the law. The writer is a former member of the Provincial Civil Service, and an author of Moments in Silence Published in Daily Times, February 14th 2019.