IHC raises objections over missing certified SC order in Imaan-Hadi case

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday raised objections during proceedings on miscellaneous petitions seeking an early hearing of sentence suspension pleas filed by human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the social media posts case, after noting that a certified copy of the relevant Supreme Court order had not been placed on record.

Justice Muhammad Azam Khan heard the petitions, which sought early fixation of the sentence suspension applications in light of earlier directions from the Supreme Court asking the IHC to decide the matter within a fortnight. Senior lawyer Faisal Siddiqi appeared on behalf of the couple. Former Islamabad High Court Bar Association president Riasat Ali Azad, District Bar President Chaudhry Naeem Gujjar, former federal minister Shireen Mazari and other lawyers were also present in court.

At the outset, Siddiqi told the court that miscellaneous petitions had been filed for an early hearing of the sentence suspension pleas and said the Supreme Court had already directed the high court to decide the matter within two weeks. Justice Khan, however, said the court had not yet received a certified copy of the apex court’s order.

"You should read the SC order. I do not have the order before me," the judge remarked.

Siddiqi replied that a copy of the order had been attached with the miscellaneous petitions. Justice Khan then pointed out that the Supreme Court order stated that the two-week period would begin after receipt of the certified copy.

"We have not received the certified order yet. Do you have one?" the judge asked.

According to the proceedings, Siddiqi answered in the affirmative and offered to hand over the copy in court. Justice Khan declined to accept it directly and instructed counsel 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 said.

Siddiqi urged the court to accept the copy, arguing that the substance of the order was already before the court. Justice Khan reiterated that judicial orders could not be taken on record informally and had to be filed in line with procedure.

"I cannot take a copy like this. You should file a miscellaneous application," he added.

During the exchange, Siddiqi questioned why the court was unwilling to receive the copy of the Supreme Court order, maintaining that the issue concerned implementation of directions already issued by the apex court. Justice Khan then asked why the certified copy had not been filed with the miscellaneous petitions at the outset. Siddiqi said the certified copy had not yet been issued by the Supreme Court registry when the petitions were moved and that the petitions had initially relied on the order available on the Supreme Court’s official website.

Justice Khan described that course as procedurally improper and directed counsel to formally place the certified copy on record through a separate miscellaneous application. Siddiqi then assured the court that the application would be filed the same day. The court later adjourned the proceedings.

Background of the case

During a Supreme Court hearing on May 12, Siddiqi had complained that the IHC had kept his clients’ sentence suspension pleas pending for two months. Imaan and Hadi have remained in jail since their arrest in January in a case registered over a protest outside the IHC and allegations that they manhandled the IHCBA president.

A sessions court later sentenced the couple to 17 years in prison in the social media posts case. The matter stems from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by the assistant director, who was also the investigating officer, at the National Cybercrime Investigation Agency in Islamabad before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre of the FIA under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016.

The complaint accused Imaan of spreading and propagating narratives aligned with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations, while Hadi was accused of reposting some of her posts. In January, the sessions court handed the couple 10 years under Section 10 of Peca, five years under Section 9 and two years under Section 26-A.

In December 2025, the couple approached the Supreme Court against an IHC order dated December 1 that had refused ad-interim relief to stay the trial. In her appeal, Imaan argued that the high court had wrongly and illegally declined to exercise discretion to stay the criminal trial and said the recording of evidence before the trial court in their absence violated Section 353 of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as their due process and fair trial rights under Article 10A of the Constitution.

On May 11, their counsel submitted additional documents before the Supreme Court, including charge sheets of different dates, the petitioners’ statements before the trial court and court orders. The petitioners said those documents were essential and relevant for adjudication of the case and explained that they had not been available when the appeal was filed because the IHC office had not prepared the paper books and the trial record was obtained later.

Separately, on April 30, the couple filed another appeal in the Supreme Court seeking an early hearing of their pleas against conviction. Filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the application sought leave to appeal against the IHC’s February 19 order. Through that order, the IHC had admitted their appeal against the trial court’s January 24 judgment sentencing them to 17 years, issued notices to respondents on the sentence suspension application, but did not suspend the sentence. The petition asked that the sentence awarded through the trial court judgment be suspended until disposal of the criminal appeal pending before the IHC.