Public Highways, Public Rights: Why Governance Must Rise Above Politics

2026-02-24 - 22:33

The recent five-page detailed order of the Division Bench Peshawar High Court directing the reopening of blocked highways is not merely a routine judicial intervention; it is a constitutional reminder of the delicate balance between political protest and public rights. The Court’s reasoning underscores that while dissent is protected in a democracy, paralysis of public life and obstruction of national connectivity cannot be justified under the banner of political expression. The Constitution of Pakistan guarantees the right to peaceful assembly under Article 16, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. Article 15 ensures freedom of movement throughout Pakistan, and Article 9 protects the right to life and liberty — rights which the superior courts have consistently interpreted in expansive terms to include access to healthcare, livelihood, and safe mobility. When major roads and motorways are blocked for prolonged periods, these rights are directly infringed. The constitutional framework does not permit one political objective to override the daily survival, business continuity, and safety of millions. The statutory scheme further reinforces this position. Under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Sections 141 to 149 address unlawful assembly and rioting; Section 186 criminalizes obstruction of public servants in discharge of their duties; Section 188 penalizes disobedience of lawful orders, including prohibitory measures under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; Section 268 defines public nuisance; Section 283 specifically prohibits obstruction or danger in public ways; and Section 341 addresses wrongful restraint. These provisions collectively make it clear that organized blockage of public roads is not merely a political act — it carries criminal consequences. Where motorways and national highways are obstructed, special legislation applies. The National Highways Safety Ordinance, 2000 prohibits obstruction of traffic and unauthorized use of highways, prescribing penalties including fines and imprisonment. The National Highway Authority Act, 1991 safeguards the right-of-way of national highways and empowers authorities to remove encroachments and illegal occupations. The National Highways and Motorway Police is statutorily mandated to ensure uninterrupted and safe traffic flow. Together, these laws create a comprehensive enforcement framework to prevent precisely the kind of paralysis that recently affected Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. However, the constitutional conversation cannot stop at identifying legal violations. The more pressing question is the role of the provincial government. Law and order is a provincial subject. The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa bears the primary constitutional responsibility to ensure that public order is maintained, highways remain operational, and citizens’ rights are protected. This responsibility exists irrespective of political affiliation. Where the ruling party in the province is itself politically aligned with the protesting group, an additional layer of maturity and restraint is required. Governance demands that the state apparatus act impartially and constitutionally. It is neither legally sustainable nor democratically prudent for a provincial administration to appear passive in the face of prolonged public suffering. The government must not provoke protestors through excessive force, but it must equally avoid acquiescence that emboldens unlawful obstruction. The standard is constitutional neutrality and firmness within the bounds of law. This is not the first time the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have endured such disruptions. In previous instances, movements across provinces have resulted in halted intercity travel, economic losses, and severe public hardship. Repetition of such episodes signals systemic weaknesses in preventive governance and coordinated enforcement. Each recurrence erodes public confidence and deepens economic fragility. The economic impact of highway blockades is immediate and severe. Pakistan’s trade architecture depends heavily on road transport. Motorways link ports with industrial hubs, agricultural markets with urban centres, and supply chains with manufacturing facilities. When these arteries are blocked, export consignments are delayed, perishable goods are damaged, fuel supply chains are disrupted, and small traders suffer income losses. Investors evaluate not only fiscal indicators but also infrastructure reliability and law-and-order stability. Persistent transport paralysis sends adverse signals to markets and undermines economic resilience. The human cost is even more troubling. Ambulances delayed in traffic, patients unable to reach hospitals, and emergency services obstructed by road closures implicate Article 9’s protection of life. The right to life is not abstract; it includes the right to timely medical access and safe mobility. Vulnerable groups — children, elderly persons, women, and persons with disabilities — bear disproportionate burdens during such crises. The Peshawar High Court’s detailed reasoning serves as a constitutional checkpoint. It reinforces the principle that protest rights coexist with, and are limited by, the rights of the broader public. It also implicitly places responsibility upon the executive to act decisively and lawfully. The way forward requires institutional clarity and political maturity. The provincial government should develop a structured protest management framework, including designated areas for assembly that do not disrupt national connectivity. Advance coordination with protest organizers, written undertakings to keep emergency corridors open, and real-time traffic monitoring can significantly reduce escalation. Swift but proportionate enforcement under the Penal Code and highway laws must follow any deliberate obstruction. Selective enforcement weakens rule of law; consistent enforcement strengthens it. Equally important is the avoidance of provocation. Excessive force, inflammatory rhetoric, or arbitrary arrests can inflame tensions and entrench confrontation. A constitutionally mature government balances firmness with restraint. It neither abdicates responsibility nor weaponizes enforcement. Democracy thrives when dissent is expressed within lawful parameters. It falters when political contestation repeatedly cripples civic life. The constitutional equilibrium is clear: the right to protest is fundamental, but it is not absolute. The state’s obligation to maintain public order and protect citizens’ rights is equally fundamental. The recent judicial intervention should therefore be seen not as a rebuke to democratic expression, but as a reaffirmation of constitutional boundaries. It is now incumbent upon the provincial government to demonstrate governance maturity, enforce the law impartially, and ensure that the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa do not once again bear the cost of political confrontation.