• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Trending:
  • Kashmir
  • Elections
Monday, June 8, 2026

Daily Times

Your right to know

  • HOME
  • Latest
  • Iran-Israel war
  • Gilgit Baltistan Election
  • Pakistan
    • Balochistan
    • Gilgit Baltistan
    • Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
    • Punjab
    • Sindh
  • World
  • Editorials & Opinions
    • Editorials
    • Op-Eds
    • Commentary / Insight
    • Perspectives
    • Cartoons
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Featured
    • Blogs
      • Pakistan
      • World
      • Lifestyle
      • Culture
      • Sports
  • Business
  • Sports
  • E-PAPER
    • Lahore
    • Islamabad
    • Karachi

APP

SC refuses to stay PTI’s long march

Published on: October 27, 2022 8:06 AM

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the federal government’s request to issue an interim order to bar the planned long march of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and sought response from former prime minister Imran Khan in the contempt of court case for violating the court order. A five-member SC larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi heard the interior ministry’s contempt of court case against former prime minister Imran Khan for violating apex court’s May 25 order wherein the PTI was restricted for its Azadi March near Peshawar Mor between the H-9 and G-9 sectors of Islamabad. During the course of proceedings, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Aamir Rahman said he had reviewed the reports of police and intelligence agencies upon which all institutions rely. He said the first question of the court was when did Imran Khan gave a call to reach the D Chowk.

The court order came on May 25 at 6 PM while Imran Khan announced long march towards D-Chowk at 6:50 PM and he (Imran) made another announcement at 9:54 PM, the AAG added. PTI had requested the sit-in at the Srinagar highway.

Aamir Rehman argued that Imran Khan had announced to go to D Chowk even before the court’s order. Then other PTI leaders also gave call for reaching the D Chowk, he added. He said Imran Khan’s D Chowk call was a contempt of court. The AAG said Imran Khan announced to end the long march at 6 o’clock on Jinnah Avenue on May 26 and went to blue area while crossing the allotted place and ended the rally which was four kilometers ahead of the allotted place at H-9 area.

The Chief Justice remarked that Imran Khan’s lawyers gave the assurance on their leader’s behalf and from Imran Khan’s statement it seems that he was informed about the court order as he (Imran) had stated that the Supreme Court had asked the government to remove the obstacles, he added.

The real question arises what was told to Imran Khan, he should come and clarify to the court who said what, the CJP remarked. The AAG informed that Babar Awan and Faisal Chaudhry gave assurance on behalf of Imran Khan and assured that no roads would be blocked and would not go beyond the designated point.

He pleaded the court to issue contempt of court notice which was rejected by the court. The court remarked they would not issue contempt or show cause notices at this time and the court would determine whether contempt of court had been committed or not after reviewing Imran Khan’s response. The Supreme Court sought written replies from Imran Khan, Babar Awan and Faisal Chaudhry.

The Chief Justice remarked whether the assurance was given for not going to D Chowk or not, and the Court also wanted to hear PTI Chief’s position on the government’s allegations.

Meanwhile, the court also ordered to provide the report of ISI, IB and Islamabad Police to the PTI and stated that the reply should be submitted in the light of the report. The court also rejected the request of Additional Attorney General to summon Imran Khan.

Meanwhile, the bench member Justice Yahya Afridi disagreed with the other members of the bench upon seeking reply from the former prime minister. Subsequently, hearing of the case was adjourned till October 31.

Filed Under: Pakistan

Submit a Comment




Primary Sidebar




Latest News

Mahira Khan reacts to acid attack on Quetta doctor, calls incident ‘barbaric’

Taylor Swift becomes richest female musician in history as net worth hits $2 billion

Lily Collins brings ‘Emily in Paris’ charm to French Open

Kim Kardashian cheers on Lewis Hamilton amid growing romance

Momina Iqbal’s rukhsati date revealed by sister

Pakistan

GB polling concludes peacefully: PPP, PML-N and PTI claim leads

Government warns against attempts to fuel unrest in AJK

Bilawal calls for dialogue to resolve AJK political crisis, meeting with PM likely

27 terrorists killed in North Waziristan IBOs: ISPR

Naqvi meets FM Araghchi, delivers CDF Munir’s message to Khamenei

More Posts from this Category

Business

Businesswomen call for economic inclusion, increased opportunities in budget discussions

OPEC+ agrees fourth oil quota hike since Hormuz closure

Global airlines slash 2026 profit forecast on fuel shock from Iran war

Economic pressure rises as joblessness hits record level, inflation shows no relief: BMP

‘FPCCI budget proposals can attract investment’

More Posts from this Category

World

Trump calls for more ‘surgical’ strikes against Hezbollah

42nd anniversary of Operation Blue Star: Stark reminder of Indian state’s tyranny towards Sikhs

Israel kills nine in Gaza as Egypt hosts new ceasefire talks

More Posts from this Category




Footer

Home
Lead Stories
Latest News
Editor’s Picks

Culture
Life & Style
Featured
Videos

Editorials
OP-EDS
Commentary
Advertise

Cartoons
Letters
Blogs
Privacy Policy

Contact
Company’s Financials
Investor Information
Terms & Conditions

Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Youtube

© 2026 Daily Times. All rights reserved.

Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
  • Manage options
  • Manage services
  • Manage {vendor_count} vendors
  • Read more about these purposes
View preferences
  • {title}
  • {title}
  • {title}
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.