PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court on Tuesday sought minutes of a federal cabinet meeting, which had decided to proscribe Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) in Oct last year.

A bench consisting of Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah fixed March 11 for next hearing of a petition jointly filed by PTM founder Manzoor Ahmad Pashteen and nine other leaders against a ban on their rights movement as well as them.

Petitioners have requestedcourt to declare illegal ban on PTM under Section 11B of Anti-Terrorism Act and the petitioners under Section 11-EE.

They have sought court`s orders for federal government to remove PTM from the list of banned outfitsinFirstSchedule of ATA and their names from ATA`s Fourth Schedule.

They also requested the court to declare that sections 11-B and 11-EE, amended through Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Act, 2014, were in conflict with Article 10-A of the Constitution that guaranteed right to fair trial and due process of law.

Petitioners sought orders for Section 11-D of the law, which dealt with keeping of an organisation under observation, to be read as a mandatory precursor to proscription under Section 11-B.

The petitioners` counsel,Attaullah Kundi, contended that federal government placed ban on PTM and declared it proscribed and claimed that federal cabinet had given approval for it.

He stated that so far no decision of the cabinet was made public in that regard. He added that the grounds for proscription had also not been given to petitioners.

He said that PTM had organised Pashtun National Jirga (PNJ) from Oct 11 to Oct 13, 2024, in Khyber tribal district to provide a platform to Pakhtuns to demand `justice and accountability`.

He said that to the utter shock of his clients, federal government issued the impugned notification on Oct 6 to ban PTM while around 250 of its leaders were `proscribed` under Section 11-EE with their names placed in Fourth Schedule of ATA.The lawyer argued that a 2014 amendment to ATA empowered government to ban an organisation on exparte basis without providing an opportunity of hearing to it, but that provision was unconstitutional and against the principle of natural justice.

Sanaullah Khan, an additional attorney general, opposed the petition and requested the bench to reject it as it was not maintainable.

He stated that ATA provided remedy to petitioner but without availing the same he had approached the court.

Meanwhile, the bench disposed of a petition filed by a resident of Khyber tribal district, Khatirullah, claiming that PTM had been setting up parallel courts and trying to create discord in the country along with ethic lines.

He had requested the court to declare functioning of thesaid courts as illegal and unconstitutional.

The PTM`s counsel assured the court that the organisation had no intention of setting up a parallel judicial system and it had been functioning within the frame work of the Constitution of Pakistan.

He said that PTM was a civil and non-violent social movement that had been advocating for the rights of Pakhtuns since its formation in 2014.

The petitioner had claimed that Manzoor Pashteen had participated in an inauguration ceremony on Sep 29, 2024, in Jamrud tehsil for formally establishing the court in the name of Pashtun National Courts (PNC).

He claimed that the operation of the impugned PNC was scheduled to start from Oct 11, 2024, which was the inaugural day of PNJ.