Peshawar, October 14,2026: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan on Wednesday moved the Peshawar High Court (PHC), challenging the imposition of emergency and governor’s rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and seeking a declaration that the measures were unconstitutional.
The petition, filed through Advocate Shah Faisal Ilyas under Article 199 of the Constitution, challenges the October 11 proclamation of emergency, the deployment of Pakistan Army troops in the province and subsequent administrative and executive measures, including the formation of an 11-member technocratic KP Advisory Council.
The plea names the Federation of Pakistan, the KP government, Governor Faisal Karim Kundi, the speaker of the provincial assembly and relevant federal and provincial officials as respondents. Former chief minister Sohail Afridi has also been named as a pro forma respondent.
The petition asks the court to set aside the emergency proclamation, restore Afridi as chief minister with his cabinet and executive powers, and declare illegal the provision directing the chief minister and provincial ministers to cease holding office.
It also challenges the transfer of the KP Assembly’s legislative powers to Parliament, arguing that the move was made without a prior resolution of the provincial assembly, which the petitioner maintains is a constitutional prerequisite under Article 232(1).
Barrister Gohar has sought an order restraining the federal government from introducing or enacting provincial legislative measures concerning KP in Parliament.
The petition further challenges the establishment of an Area Development Secretariat (ADS) in 12 districts, the constitution of the advisory council headed by Governor Kundi, and the removal of the provincial advocate general and appointment of any replacement.
It also questions the October 11 order deploying army troops under Article 245, arguing that military assistance cannot replace the civilian executive or bypass the province’s constitutional administration. The petitioner maintains that the deployment could not lawfully be ordered without a valid requisition from the provincial government headed by Afridi.
The plea seeks the immediate release and production before the court of Afridi and members of his cabinet and assembly who, according to the petition, were placed in preventive custody following the imposition of emergency and governor’s rule.
It also asks the court to order the removal of containers, barricades and other obstructions around the Chief Minister’s Secretariat and KP Assembly Secretariat to ensure elected representatives can perform their duties without hindrance.
Barrister Gohar has requested the federal government and the provincial governor to produce the complete record underlying the emergency proclamation, including the governor’s report and the federal cabinet’s summary, along with the material relied upon to justify the move.
The petition argues that a prior resolution of the provincial assembly was an indispensable condition for issuing the emergency proclamation under Article 232(1), but no such resolution was moved, debated or passed by the KP Assembly.
In the absence of that requirement, the petitioner contends, the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to advise or issue the proclamation.
The plea maintains that bypassing the elected provincial assembly violated the constitutional framework governing federalism, democracy and provincial autonomy, citing Articles 1, 2A and 142 of the Constitution.
It also argues that the proclamation does not establish the existence of a grave emergency arising from war or external aggression, as contemplated under Article 232(1). The petitioner says the reference to internal disturbances lacks demonstrable and objective grounds.
The petition compares the situation with terrorist violence in Balochistan, arguing that the absence of a similar emergency declaration there raises questions about the basis for the measures imposed in KP. It alleges that the security justification is being used selectively against a province governed by the opposition.
The petitioner further contends that the federal government’s actions are politically motivated and linked to disagreements over the demands of PTI founder Imran Khan.
The plea also challenges the invocation of Article 234, describing it as lacking lawful authority and jurisdictional basis.
The emergency was imposed amid escalating tensions between the federal government led by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the PTI-led KP administration. Disagreements over counterterrorism policy were among the issues cited in the breakdown of talks between the two sides on October 3.
Following the proclamation, Governor Kundi assumed responsibility for running the province on behalf of the federal government, while an 11-member advisory council was constituted to assist him. The federal government also authorised the deployment of army troops and assets in aid of civil power in the province.
The high court has been asked to grant the requested relief and any further orders it considers appropriate.
