Business Recorder
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has been requested to recall/withdraw its May 12 order directing the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to decide human rights lawyers – Imaan Zainab Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha – applications for suspension of their sentences in two weeks. The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on Monday filed an application before the apex court, requesting it to recall and withdraw the order to help preserve the “sanctity and independence of the judiciary, maintaining equality among citizens and avoiding discriminatory treatment towards the couple merely on account of being members of the bar”. Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, a judge of the IHC, on Monday, on the request of the prosecution, adjourned the hearing of Imaan and Hadi’s pleas seeking suspension of their sentences until Thursday (June 4). The prosecutor who attended the hearing informed the court that one of his team members was travelling from Lahore while another was engaged in proceedings before the IHC chief justice. At that, Justice Azam remarked that he was specifically at the court for the hearing of Imaan’s and Hadi’s pleas despite being nominated for mediation training. The couple was in jail since their arrest in January in a case registered against the two for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. The sessions court, in January, 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 the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Peca). In December 2025, Imaan and her husband had moved the apex court to set aside IHC’s decision that denied interim relief in the controversial social media post case. The Supreme Court on May 12 had ordered the IHC to decide the couple’s suspension of sentence applications within two weeks. The NCCIA, in its petition, contended that the couple had invoked the jurisdiction of the SC under Article 185(3) of the Constitution under the pretext of an “order” in which IHC had issued notices to the respondents with an observation that the contentions raised need consideration. “The issuance of ‘notice’ does not fall in the ambit of Article 185(3) as the appeal can only lie to the Supreme Court from a ‘judgment’, ‘decree’, ‘order’, or ‘sentence of a high court. Hence their appeal was not maintainable,” the petition argued. NCCIA underscored SC’s consistent and long-standing practice of not interfering in matters pending before high courts on the initial/interlocutory stage, except in extraordinary or highly exceptional circumstances. It said the couple had approached the SC with the grievance that their applications for early hearing were not fixed or heard. Normally, the superior courts avoid intervention in such matters unless there is a situation where grave illegality is committed, or to foster justice, or the matter is of an urgent nature, the petition argued. The NCCIA contended that the couple seemed not interested in the fixation of their criminal appeals; rather, they were insistent on getting a decision on their application filed under Section 426 of the CrPC. For that purpose, they filed two applications for early hearing, a fact which was evident from their petition filed before the SC. The NCCIA argued that the main grievance of the couple before the SC was that they had been denied a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution, as their two applications for early hearing of applications for suspension of sentence were not fixed. But the SC’s binding order to the IHC seemed to give “special treatment” to Imaan and Hadi for being members of the Bar, the petition feared. The same treatment was accorded to them by the trial court when they remained hostile and derogatory, as the trial court showed “restraint” from passing any adverse order against them, the NCCIA asserted. It further said that before passing any direction to the IHC, the SC should have called for a report of pending appeals and applications for the suspension of the sentences before the high court, so that principles of fairness, equality, and impartiality were maintained, and to avoid an impression of extraordinary treatment to the petitioners. The NCCIA highlighted that the lawyers had also filed petitions against the IHC chief justice, alleging harassment. It said after the SC hearing, Imaan’s mother had categorically said that by issuing the May 12 order, the SC had “accepted” the IHC’s bias against her daughter. “Her statement is clearly creating doubts on the independence of the judiciary,” the petition said. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Go to News Site