close

Federal govt submits sealed report to PHC about ban on PTM

January 15, 2026
People are seen gathered outside the Peshawar High Court (PHC). — APP/File
People are seen gathered outside the Peshawar High Court (PHC). — APP/File

PESHAWAR: The federal government on Wednesday submitted a sealed report to the Peshawar High Court (PHC) regarding the ban imposed on the proscribed organisation Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM).

The court adjourned the hearing of the case till January 21, observing that the matter would be taken up on the next date.A two-member bench comprising Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal heard the petitions filed against the ban on PTM.

Counsel for the petitioners, Advocate Attaullah Kundi, appeared before the court, while Additional Attorney General Sanaullah represented the federal government.The PTM counsel submitted that the federal government had imposed the ban on PTM without any solid justification. He said the petitioners had approached the PHC against the ban because PTM was a peaceful movement with no links to terrorism, yet the Ministry of Interior had banned it and placed the persons associated with it in the Fourth Schedule, which he termed unconstitutional.

He argued that at the previous hearing, the court had directed the federal government to submit a report explaining the reasons for imposing the ban, but the report had not been shared with the petitioners.

During the hearing, AAG Sanaullah informed the court that the report had been submitted and, due to the sensitive nature of the matter, it had been filed in a sealed envelope for the court’s perusal only.

However, the petitioners’ counsel pleaded that from the very first day they had been asking to be informed of the reasons for the ban, but the government had failed to disclose them and had not provided the report to them.

The AAG reiterated that the report had been submitted in writing.Justice Sahibzada Asadullah remarked that the bench would examine the report submitted by the federal government, adding that the case would require time and therefore could not be heard in detail on the same day.He said the court would hear the matter the following week and pass appropriate orders. The bench then adjourned the hearing till January 21.