ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has dissolved the bench hearing appeals filed by human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her spouse Hadi Ali Chattha against their conviction in a case related to their controversial social media posts.
The IHC has ordered to forward the file to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar, for the constitution of a new court.
Justice Muhammad Asif issued the order on Monday on a petition filed by the appellants seeking early hearing of their appeals and suspension of their sentences.
During the proceedings, the appellants’ lawyer, Riasat Ali Azad, argued that although the matter was taken up again on February 19, no effective hearing date had been assigned, prolonging his clients’ imprisonment.
The court was informed that a bench comprising Justice Muhammed Azam Khan had earlier heard proceedings involving the same appellants.
The order noted that for the sake of judicial consistency, continuity and effective resolution, the present appeal should also be filed before that court.
Accordingly, the court directed the office to submit the case file before the Court of Justice for passing appropriate orders regarding reassignment of the matter.
This development comes days after the previous hearing on February 27, when the government requested that the appeal be transferred to Justice Khan’s court, arguing that a similar matter had been heard there before.
The deputy attorney general had maintained that it would be appropriate for the same court to hear related matters.
However, the petitioner’s counsel opposed the move at that time, maintaining that no similar case was pending before any other court. He noted that the present appeal had been examined by Justice Muhammad Asif since its inception.
On January 24, the session judge of the Islamabad Criminal Court-West sentenced Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha to a combined term of 17 years in prison and imposed fines of Rs 36 million each.
The prosecution alleged that human rights lawyers’ posts on social media incited ethnic hatred, undermined public trust in state institutions, and falsely implicated the armed forces in terrorism and enforced disappearances.
On February 7, the couple challenged the trial court’s order in the IHC. In their appeal, the petitioners contended that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory legal requirements and proceeded to announce the verdict even though a transfer application was pending before the IHC.
They argued that, under the law, no ruling could be issued while a transfer petition remained undecided. They further argued that the trial court undermined transparency by restricting their right to defense.
