The Supreme Court on Thursday blamed the government for not taking timely action to avert the Faizabad sit-in.
The Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior submitted their reports to the bench during the hearing of the notice taken by the Supreme Court on the Faizabad sit-in.
Reading the reports Justice Mushir Alam asked the Attorney General if he had gone through the reports himself.
“The Punjab government was aware of the entire situation,” Justice Mushir Alam said while reading from the report.
Read more: Supreme Court takes suo motu notice of Islamabad sit-in
"If something happens yet again tomorrow, will [they] close down cities again?" he asked.
"We don't want bloodshed in the country," Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf told the court. "We are taking initiatives [about the sit-in]."
The Supreme Court had taken suo motu notice of the protests on Tuesday, and had sought replies from the relevant government quarters. The apex court had also issued notices to Inspector General Islamabad Police and Attorney General.
A day earlier, at least four security personnel were injured when the protesters resorted to pelting stones at security forces deployed in the area. Four FC and police personnel, including SP Saddar Amir Niazi, were injured as a result.
Also read: Islamabad sit-in continues despite court notices, official pleas
The protest has resulted in severe issues for residents of the capital and Rawalpindi, who face traffic jams and mobility issues on a daily basis. At least two casualties due to ambulances being unable to cross the protesters have also been reported.
Talks between the government and protesters on Saturday and then on Monday failed with no breakthrough in sight, as protest leaders continue to demand the resignation of Federal Minister for Law and Justice Zahid Hamid.
The protests are being held against the change in the finality of Prophethood oath in the law when the government passed the Elections Act 2017 last month. The change, dubbed a clerical error by the government, was immediately fixed as an amendment was passed later.
