“No person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with law”—Article 24, Constitution of Pakistan

There is something profoundly disturbing about the photograph before us. Cartons, bundles and merchandise lie scattered beside brightly painted trucks while commercial containers stand immobilised. These vehicles were not manufactured as barricades. They were not purchased by the State as instruments of crowd control. They belong to transporters and businesses whose purpose is remarkably mundane: to carry goods from one place to another.

Yet whenever political protest threatens Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore or another major city, a familiar ritual begins. Containers appear across highways and intersections. Roads are sealed. Transporters complain that vehicles are stopped, cargo becomes stranded and drivers are detained or prevented from leaving. Commerce becomes collateral damage in a political confrontation to which the trader, exporter, importer or truck driver may have absolutely no connection. This is not an argument about whether any particular political party should be permitted to paralyse a city. Pakistan's Constitution guarantees as fundamental right a peaceful assembly without arms under Article 16, but expressly subjects that right to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of public order.

The Islamabad High Court recently went further in the context of the proposed September 27 ,2026 long march, holding that political activity cannot lawfully obstruct roads in a manner that prevents citizens from moving freely, conducting business or reaching hospitals and educational institutions. Fair enough but surely the same concern for citizens' rights must apply to the State itself.

If protesters cannot appropriate public roads indefinitely for political purposes, why should authorities be able casually to appropriate private commercial property to stop them? Article 24 of the Constitution is instructive. It protects property from deprivation except in accordance with law and provides that compulsory acquisition or taking possession for a public purpose must be under lawful authority providing for compensation.

Public order is unquestionably a legitimate responsibility of government, but legitimate purpose does not automatically legitimise every method adopted to achieve it. This........

© The Friday Times