The court rejects the prosecution’s various pleas challenging the maintenance of the applications
Lawyer and human rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, lawyer Hadi Ali Chattha. PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Saturday declared applications filed by lawyer Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha for stay of their sentences for maintainability in the controversial social media post case.
Imaan, a rights activist and lawyer, and Chattha, a lawyer, were sentenced in January 2026 to a total of 17 years in prison on multiple charges linked to controversial social media posts that prosecutors argued amounted to an anti-government narrative under cybercrime laws.
The court had reserved its decision on the prosecution’s miscellaneous application a day earlier after hearing arguments from both sides.
The court today rejected the prosecution’s various applications challenging the maintenance of the applications. Justice Muhammad Azam Khan delivered the reserved sentence.
The prosecution had objected that the applications by Imaan and Chattha were premature. Following its ruling, the court adjourned the hearing on the suspended sentence applications indefinitely.
Read: IHC reserves decision on maintenance of Imaan Mazari, Chattha sentence suspension pleas
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 processed first. If the other miscellaneous application is processed before ours, our application will become ineffective,” the lawyer said.
Counsel for Imaan and Chattha, Faisal Siddiqui, told the court that he was ready to present arguments on the miscellaneous application.
“They are saying that if the applications for a stay of sentence are rejected, then both cases must be heard together,” he argued.
Addressing the defense counsel, Justice Khan noted 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 ready to present his arguments.
SC and IHC place
In March, Imaan approached the Supreme Court (SC) seeking a stay of her sentence, moving the top court after the IHC did not list her application for hearing. Filed through Siddiqi, the petition stated that despite her lawyer’s request to suspend the court’s sentence, the IHC only issued notices on the suspension application on February 19 and did not suspend the petitioner’s sentence.
The petition further alleged that the trial court’s order was totally illegal and manifestly mala fide as it violated due process requirements under Articles 10 and 10A of the Constitution, violating mandatory provisions of Sections 233, 234, 353, 367 and 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Read also: SC seeks response on Imaan verdict
In June, the NCCIA also challenged the SC’s earlier order directing the IHC to decide on the couple’s suspension applications within a specific time frame. In its petition, the NCCIA argued that the SC cannot interfere in cases already pending in a High Court.
The petition stated that in its order of 12 May the Supreme Court had given the High Court certain instructions, whereas the competence to decide on a request for suspension of sentence rests with the relevant High Court, which is obliged to hear all parties and decide the case in accordance with the law.
The NCCIA argued that in accordance with the principle of equal treatment, the SC should withdraw its said order. It held that Imaan and Chattha were not entitled to any special concession or preferential treatment simply because they are members of the legal fraternity.
According to the petitioner, a party cannot directly approach the SC against a High Court’s decision to give notice of a hearing to the opposing party. The NCCIA requested the apex court to recall its order dated May 12, 2026 so that the case can proceed before the appropriate High Court in accordance with law.
Case on social media
The case against Imaan and Hadi allegedly relates to controversial posts and reposts on X, described by authorities as “anti-government”. The NCCIA registered the case under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, claiming that the content was intended to incite divisions and portray government institutions negatively.
The social media posting case reached the IHC after the trial on November 19, where the testimony of all prosecution witnesses was recorded. The two lawyers had challenged procedural irregularities, including the recording of evidence in their absence and the appointment of state-appointed counsel without their consent, prompting the IHC’s intervention.
Legal bodies, including the Islamabad Bar Association, have criticized aspects of the case, claiming that the defendants’ right to a fair defense has been undermined.
Their request to transfer the case was heard by the High Court, which declined to grant an immediate stay. The couple then approached the SC, which temporarily stayed the trial until the high court concluded its hearing.
Read more: IHC adjourns Imaan Mazari, Hadi Chattha stay of sentence petitions till June 4
Meanwhile, several other FIRs surfaced against the couple during this time. One of the recently surfaced FIRs, registered at Kohsar Police Station on 26 July 2025, was filed on the complaint of Superintendent of Police Safdar Hussain in connection with a protest by the Balock Yakjehti Committee of the National Press Club under several sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The couple were arrested on January 23 near the underpass outside Serena Hotel while traveling to the district courts and later sent to 14-day custody by an anti-terrorism court.
A District and Sessions Court later sentenced both to a combined 17 years’ rigorous imprisonment each: five years under PECA Section 9 (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 further imprisonment in case of non-payment. The judge also acquitted them of the PECA charge of hate speech under Section 11, saying the prosecution’s witnesses did not support that claim.
During the trial conducted via video link, Imaan alleged ill-treatment in custody and announced a boycott of the hearing. The judge noted that the pair were already in custody in another case and said they would remain in jail to serve their sentences, with credit for time spent in custody under Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code.
