Newly constituted three-member tribunal to consider petitions filed by the lawyer and the husband
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has planned to hear the petitions filed by lawyer and activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, requesting the suspension of their sentences.
A three-member bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and comprising Justice Mussarat Hilali and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, will hear the matter on July 6.
According to the petition, despite the defense lawyer’s repeated request to stay the trial court’s sentence, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) only issued notices on the stay applications on February 19 and did not stay the couple’s 17-year sentences handed down for controversial social media posts.
Earlier, on May 12, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Shahid Waheed had directed the IHC to decide the applications “preferably within two weeks” while hearing the petitions filed by the couple. However, the matter is still pending before the high court.
Despite the SC’s directions, the IHC is yet to decide the applications. The matter is now before a differently constituted SC bench.
It is not clear whether the three-member committee constituted under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act allocated the case to the new bench.
The IHC last heard the matter on June 1, when the prosecution sought time to prepare its arguments. The hearing was adjourned until June 4. However, the June 4 cause list was canceled on June 2 and the case has not been listed since.
Later, Faisal Siddiqi, lawyer for Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha, approached the SC seeking an early hearing in the matter. Interestingly, the petitions have now been filed before another SC bench.
Legal observers say the court can adopt one of three courses: return the matter to the IHC with directions for its early disposal, withdraw the high court’s May 12 order or decide on its own the applications for suspension of the sentence.
Meanwhile, the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) has challenged the SC’s earlier order directing the IHC to decide the couple’s suspension applications within a specified time frame.
In a concise statement filed before the court in the same case, the NCCIA argued that the SC has a long-standing and consistent practice of not interfering in matters pending before the high courts at the initial or interlocutory stage, except in extraordinary or highly exceptional circumstances.
