The report submitted by an inquiry commission formed to investigate the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan’s (TLP) 2017 Faizabad sit-in does not attend to the terms of references, the Supreme Court said on Monday.

“In our opinion, the report does not attend to the said terms of reference. Moreover, the commission has ventured into areas which were not part of its TORs,” Chief Justice Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa said while dictating the order of the hearing.

A three-member Supreme Court bench took up a set of review petitions filed against the SC’s 2019 judgement in the Faizabad sit-in case.

The bench headed by Justice Isa, and also including Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Awan presided over the hearing, which was broadcast live on the Supreme Court website and YouTube channel.

The report was formed by a three-member commission comprising IGP (retd) Tahir Alam Khan, Additional Secretary Khushal Khan, and IGP (retd) Dr Syed Akhtar Ali Shah. It submitted a report on March 06, 2024, comprising 140 pages.

“We also note that all were not treated similarly and statements of some were recorded or note others sent questioners. Surprisingly, no member of TLP was called for and statements recorded,” the order said.

It added that the commission “somehow assumed and did so incorrectly” that the right to protest or travelling to Islamabad to protest was prohibited by the Constitution even though, the judgement had stated the opposite.

“The commission also did not consider many of the aspects of the judgement and order subsequently passed by this court. The judgement had noted that the right to assemble and protest, provided it is peaceful and complies with the law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order cannot be proscribed.”

The apex court also noted that it was disappointing to note the “element of provincialism” which has crept into the report and the castigating those at the political helm of the affairs at the relevant time “disregarding the perpetrators of violence”.

Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan informed the court that whether the government endorsed the said report and or does so imparted. The AGP stated that he would be filing a formal statement in this regard. He sought two weeks time from the court to submit the reply that was granted.

He however expressed his opinion as the AGP that the report “lacked substance and that by and large the TORs referred to the commission were not attended to.”

AGP Awan would submit the reply on behalf of the government.

“The federal government should also state whether it wants to make public the report or not,” the order said, “let the copy of this order be sent to the commission members through the government of Pakistan who may respond to the initial observations made in a writing and or may also be present if they elect to do so.”