Civil Appeal Nos.977 & 978 of 2018 and C.M.A. No.3658/2019 in C.A. No.978/2018 7 to national security situations that fall outside the ambit of Section 54(3). 7. Consequently, the only question arising before us for determination is whether PTA has exercised its power under the policy directive dated 26.12.2009 reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the Act [ref: Section 24-A(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (“1897 Act”)]. This test has been reiterated by this Court in the Muhammad Amin case (supra). Reasonableness and fairness are criteria that bear nexus with the factual matrix of a grievance and with the object of the law. In the present case, the factual background for the impugned exercise of such power vide PTA’s email dated 28.03.2016 has not been examined by the learned High Court. In our considered view, in a country where there is sectarian tension during the Ashoora in Moharram the Zuljinah procession ought to be protected from attacks and turmoil. This is attempted by PTA’s email dated 21.10.2015 which is necessary to ensure the religious freedom guaranteed to the citizens under Article 20 of the Constitution. Equally, the Pakistan Day Parade by the Armed Forces is an annual national event where apart from the Armed Forces personnel, the highest State and foreign dignitaries are assembled to view the military parade. This again is an event which deserves security protection. Indeed, PTA’s email dated 22.03.2016 seeks to ensure that. Similarly, the impugned directions of 28.03.2016 were issued during the protest which marked the Chehlum of Mumtaz Qadri. This protest had involved severe damage to public property (Danish Hussain, ‘D-Chowk Protestors End Sit-In After Successful Talks’ The Express Tribune (Islamabad, 31 March 2016)). Therefore to curtail further escalation of damage/violence