The district administration’s refusal to give a no-objection certificate (NOC) for the Aurat March march was challenged in a petition, and the Lahore High Court ordered the rally’s organisers and the city’s deputy commissioner to choose a route. Today, an agreement was reached between the two parties, and the route from the Nadra Office in Shimla Pahari to Faletti’s Hotel was set in stone. The protest is set for March 8 between 2 and 6 p.m.
The Aurat March planning committee has requested permission to organise a rally and march in Nasser Bagh in Lahore on March 8. DC Haider, however, turned down their request because of the peace and order crisis, terror alerts, and security issues. The Aurat March organisers responded by submitting a petition to the LHC in accordance with Article 199 of the Constitution. The Lahore security situation and player movement for PSL matches were mentioned by the DC at the hearing as reasons for refusing the permit. The court questioned why there were still demonstrations and processions in the city given the security situation. Also, the judge gave the Aurat March organisers the go-ahead to choose the rally’s location after consulting with the government and reporting back to the court. The court highlighted that both the administration and the Aurat March organisers should maintain peace and order during the event and invalidated the DC’s warning that the rally would not be permitted.
The petition submitted on behalf of the Aurat March asked the Lahore High Court to declare the Deputy Commissioner’s order to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of several constitutional provisions. It also asked the court to order that it be suspended while the case is being decided. The appeal sought the defendants to make it easier for the petitioners and all women in Lahore to take part in the Aurat March in a peaceful manner. The argument made in the plea was that the DC’s decision was a blatant exercise of power and infringed fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. After meeting with the DC and outlining their plans for the march, the petitioners received the contested order prohibiting the march three days later. The petitioners claimed that they had asked the DC for assistance in securing the Aurat March, which would be contained inside Nasir Bagh’s confines. The petitioners contended that the respondents have a history of putting obstacles in the peaceful and legal activity of the Aurat March by citing earlier case law and legal processes pertaining to the Aurat March. The DC’s order’s general restriction is discriminatory and cannot be implemented without good cause, making it susceptible to being overturned by the court.