The court rejects the various reasons of the prosecution that question the maintainability of the applications
Lawyer and human rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, defender Hadi Ali Chattha. PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Saturday declared that applications filed by lawyer Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha seeking suspension of their sentences were maintainable in the controversial social media posts case.
Imaan, an activist and rights lawyer, and Chattha, an advocate, received a combined 17-year sentence in January 2026 on multiple charges related to controversial social media posts that prosecutors said amounted to an anti-state narrative under cybercrime laws.
The court had reserved its decision on the prosecution’s miscellaneous request a day earlier after hearing arguments from both sides.
The court today dismissed the prosecution’s miscellaneous application questioning the maintainability of the applications. Judge Muhammad Azam Khan delivered the reserved verdict.
The prosecution objected that the applications filed by Imaan and Chattha were premature. Following its ruling, the court indefinitely postponed the hearing on the requests for suspension of sentence.
Read: IHC reserves decision on Imaan Mazari’s maintainability and requests for suspension of Chattha’s sentence
During Friday’s hearing, the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) raised objections to the maintainability of the applications, as the agency’s lawyer argued that the applications had been filed prematurely.
“We request that our miscellaneous application be heard first. If the other miscellaneous application is heard before our application, our application will be ineffective,” the lawyer said.
Imaan and Chattha’s lawyer Faisal Siddiqui told the court that he was ready to present arguments on the miscellaneous application.
“They are saying that if the suspended sentence requests are dismissed, then both issues should be dealt with together,” he argued.
Addressing the defense lawyer, Justice Khan remarked that he should prepare himself first, adding that it would be better for the protection of his rights.
In response, Siddiqui said he waived his rights and was willing to present his arguments.
SC and IHC allegations
In March, Imaan approached the Supreme Court (SC) seeking stay of his sentence, moving the high court after the IHC did not include his application for hearing. Filed through Siddiqi, the petition claimed that despite his lawyer’s request to stay the trial court’s sentence, the IHC only issued notices on the stay application on February 19 and did not stay the petitioner’s sentence.
The petition further argued that the trial court’s order was wholly illegal and clearly malafide as it violated the due process requirements laid down in Articles 10 and 10A of the Constitution, violating the mandatory provisions of Sections 233, 234, 353, 367 and 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Also read: SC seeks answers to Imaan’s sentencing petition
In June, the NCCIA also challenged the SC’s earlier order directing the IHC to decide the couple’s suspension applications within a specified time frame. In its petition, the NCCIA held that the SC cannot interfere in matters already pending before a High Court.
The petition said that in its order dated May 12, the top court had given certain directions to the High Court, while the authority to decide an application for suspension of sentence lies with the High Court concerned, which is required to hear all the parties and decide the matter in accordance with law.
The NCCIA argued that in accordance with the principle of equal treatment, the SC should withdraw the said order. He held that Imaan and Chattha were not entitled to any special concessions or preferential treatment simply because they were members of the legal fraternity.
According to the plaintiff, a party cannot directly appeal to the SC against a High Court’s decision to summon the opposing party to a hearing. The NCCIA requested the high court to revoke its order dated May 12, 2026, so that the matter can proceed before the concerned High Court in accordance with law.
Social media case
The case against Imaan and Hadi relates to allegedly controversial posts and republishings on X, described by authorities as “anti-state”. The NCCIA registered the case under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, alleging that the content was aimed at inciting divisions and negatively portraying state institutions.
The social media posts case came to the IHC after the trial court proceedings on November 19, during which the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses were recorded. The two lawyers had questioned procedural irregularities, including recording of evidence in their absence and appointment of a state-appointed lawyer without their consent, prompting the IHC’s intervention.
Legal bodies, including the Islamabad Bar Association, have criticized aspects of the process, arguing that the accused’s right to a fair defense has been undermined.
His plea to transfer the case was heard by the high court, which refused to grant an immediate stay. The couple then approached the Supreme Court, which temporarily halted the trial until the High Court completed its hearing.
Read more: IHC adjourns requests for suspension of sentences of Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chattha until June 4
Meanwhile, many other FIRs surfaced against the couple during this time. One of the newly surfaced FIRs, registered at the Kohsar police station on July 26, 2025, was lodged on the complaint of Superintendent of Police Safdar Hussain in connection with a protest by the Balock Yakjehti Committee at the National Press Club under multiple sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The couple was arrested on January 23 near the underpass in front of Hotel Serena while on their way to the district courts, and later sent to 14-day judicial remand by an anti-terrorism court.
Subsequently, a district and sessions court sentenced both to a combined sentence of 17 years of rigorous imprisonment each: five years under Section 9 of PECA (plus a fine of Rs 5 million), 10 years under Section 10 (plus Rs 30 million) and two years under Section 26-A (plus Rs 1 million), with additional jail term in case of non-payment of fines. The judge also acquitted them of PECA’s hate speech charge under Section 11, saying that prosecution witnesses did not support that charge.
During the process held by videoconference, Imaan reported ill-treatment in custody and announced a boycott of the hearing. The ruling noted that the couple was already in custody in another case and said they would remain in jail to serve their sentences, with credit for time spent in detention under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
