The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has issued a landmark ruling prohibiting the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government from using official vehicles, machinery, or personnel for political activities, branding the practice a ‘blatant misuse of public property and authority.’

The decisive judgment was delivered in response to a writ petition that challenged the deployment of Rescue 1122 equipment, Fire Brigade units, and other government assets and staff during the KP government’s long march and protest campaign.

In its verdict, the court asserted that employing public resources, which are funded by taxpayers, to facilitate or participate in political gatherings fundamentally violates the principles of public trust and accountability.

The court emphasized that state assets exist exclusively for performing official duties and serving the public, not for advancing partisan objectives.

The PHC observed that such misappropriation could constitute misconduct and an abuse of authority, reminding public officials of their obligations under Articles 4, 5, and 25 of the Constitution, which guarantee legal equality and mandate the faithful execution of public responsibilities.

Concluding the proceedings, the court issued a binding directive that forbids the KP administration from deploying or sanctioning the use of any official vehicle, machinery, or government employee for political events of any kind.

Legal commentators have hailed the judgment as a significant victory for taxpayers, stating that it establishes a firm constitutional boundary between governance and partisan politics.

By referencing constitutional provisions, the court has elevated the matter from an administrative ethical concern to one of legal misconduct. This signals that using ambulances, fire trucks, or rescue vehicles for rallies could lead to serious repercussions.

The ruling also reinforces the principle of neutrality for state institutions. The court noted that the presence of emergency services at political functions erodes public confidence and creates the perception that state machinery is aligned with a specific party.

Observers point out that the decision exposes the KP government’s previous utilization of official resources in political demonstrations, effectively turning public bodies into partisan instruments. The PHC’s order now provides a clear legal foundation for opposition parties and civil society to challenge any future attempts to co-opt state machinery for political ends.

The court’s message is unequivocal: while political activity is allowed, it cannot be conducted at the expense of emergency services or public assets purchased and maintained with taxpayer funds for vital public services like hospitals, schools, and crisis response.