ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday raised objections over the non-submission of certified copies of Supreme Court orders during the hearing of miscellaneous petitions seeking early hearing of appeals filed by convicted human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posts case.
Justice Muhammad Azam Khan heard the petitions seeking fixation of the sentence suspension petitions at an early date in light of directions issued earlier by the SC directing the IHC to decide the plea within a fortnight.
Senior lawyer Faisal Siddiqi appeared before the court on behalf of the couple on Tuesday. Former president of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) Riasat Ali Azad, District Bar President Chaudhry Naeem Gujjar, former federal minister and Imaan’s mother Shireen Mazari and other lawyers were also present in the courtroom during the proceedings.
At the outset of the hearing, Siddiqi informed the court that miscellaneous petitions had been filed for the early hearing of the sentence suspension pleas. He submitted that the SC had already directed the IHC to decide the matter within two weeks.
Justice Khan, however, observed that the court had not yet received a certified copy of the SC order.
“You should read the SC order. I do not have the order before me,” the judge remarked.
Siddiqi responded that a copy of the apex court’s order had been attached to the miscellaneous petitions. The judge then pointed out that the SC order specifically mentioned that the two-week period would commence after receipt of the certified copy.
“We have not received the certified order yet. Do you have one?” Justice Khan asked.
The counsel replied in the affirmative and offered to hand over the copy during the hearing. However, the judge declined to accept it directly and directed the lawyer to place it on record through the court office.
“This is not the proper way to submit an order. You should file it through the regular office,” the judge observed.
Siddiqi urged the court to accept the copy, saying the substance of the order was already before the court. However, Justice Khan reiterated that judicial orders could not be taken on record informally and must be filed in accordance with procedural requirements.
“I cannot take a copy like this. You should file a miscellaneous application,” the judge remarked.
During the exchange, Siddiqi questioned why the court was reluctant to receive the copy of the SC order, maintaining that the matter involved the implementation of directions already issued by the apex court.
Justice Khan then asked why a certified copy had not been filed along with the miscellaneous petitions in the first place.
The counsel explained that when the petitions were moved, the certified copy had not yet been issued by the SC registry. He added that the petitions had initially been filed based on the order available on the SC’s official website.
The judge observed that such practice was procedurally improper and directed the counsel to formally place the certified copy on record through a separate miscellaneous application.
Siddiqi subsequently assured the court that the required application would be filed the same day. Following the exchange, the court adjourned further proceedings.
During the SC hearing on May 12, Siddiqi had complained that the IHC had kept his clients’ pleas for the suspension of their sentences pending despite the passage of two months.
The case
Imaan and Hadi have been in jail since their arrest in January in a case registered against the two for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHCBA president. While the arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians, and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years in prison in the social media posts case just a day after the development.
The controversy at the centre of the case stems from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by the assistant director (investigating officer) at the National Cybercrime Investigation Agency, Islamabad, before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre, FIA, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Peca).
The complaint accused Imaan of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations,” while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts.
In January, the sessions court sentenced the duo to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 10 (cyber terrorism), five years’ imprisonment under Section 9 (glorification of an offence) and two years’ imprisonment under Section 26-A (false and fake information) of Peca.
In December 2025, the couple moved the SC to overturn the IHC’s decision refusing interim relief in the case. The appeal was filed against a December 1 IHC order that denied ad-interim relief of staying the trial without a just legal cause.
In her appeal, Imaan argued that the high court had “erroneously and illegally refused” to exercise the discretion to grant ad-interim relief to the petitioners to stay the criminal trial, as recording of evidence before the trial court in their absence was not only a violation of Section 353 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), but also their due process and fair trial rights under Article 10A of the Constitution.
On May 11, their counsel submitted additional documents to the SC in relevance to the appeal, consisting of the charge sheets of different dates against the petitioners, their statements before the trial court and the orders issued by the court.
The petitioners pleaded before the SC to allow bringing these documents on record in the interest of justice since they were “essential and relevant for adjudication of the present case”.
They explained that the said documents were not available at the time of filing the appeal, since the paper books were not prepared by the office of the IHC; the trial record was obtained after filing the appeals.
On April 30, the duo had moved another appeal in the SC, seeking an early hearing of their pleas against their conviction.
Moved under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the application requested the grant of leave to appeal against the February 19 IHC order. Through that order, the IHC had admitted the appeal against the trial court’s Jan 24 decision of handing down a 17-year sentence to the couple.
And while it had issued notices to the respondents on the application for the suspension of sentence, it had not suspended the sentence.
The petition contended that the appeals be accepted and the sentence awarded to the petitioners through the impugned trial court’s judgment be suspended till the disposal of the criminal appeal pending before the IHC.
