ISLAMABAD: Right activist Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir on Wednesday approached the Supreme Court with a plea to set aside the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) denial of interim relief in the controversial social media post case against her.

Moved under Article 185(3) of the Constitution through senior counsel Faisal Siddiqi, the appeal jointly filed by the petitioner’s husband, Abdul Hadi Mohammad Ali, pleaded that IHC’s order was contrary to the facts, law and therefore liable to be set aside, to the extent that it denied ad-interim relief by staying the trial.

The controversy originates from a complaint filed against the petitioners by Assistant Director (Investigating Officer) National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA), Islamabad (respondent No. 2) on Aug 12, 2025, before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre, FIA.

The complaint accused Imaan Hazir of having disseminated and “propagated narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations,” whereas her husband was implicated for retweeting some posts of his wife.

Petition argues IHC ‘erroneously’ denied ad-interim relief in Peca case built on old posts

Consequently, an inquiry was initiated, and following its conclusion, on Aug 22, 2025, FIR was lodged against the petitioners, alleging commission of offences under sections 9, 10, 11 and 26-A of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA).

The appeal contended that FIR simply reproduces the social media posts referenced in the complaint, deeming the petitioners liable for the commission of these offences.

It is also relevant to note that no inquiry report has ever been placed on record, based on which FIR was lodged and that the petitioners were never summoned to appear in any such inquiry.

Later, trial proceedings were initiated, and the petitioners allegedly were subjected to a plethora of violations of the mandatory provisions of law, which the trial court was bound to follow.

The petition contended that the manner in which the charges were framed against the petitioners, in their absence, was one pertinent example, in respect of which a separate criminal revision was already pending before IHC.

The petition argued that the high court has erroneously and illegally refused to exercise the discretion to grant ad-interim relief to the petitioners to stay the criminal trial, even though there were multiple factual and legal reasons for such discretion to be exercised to grant such as interim relief.

It is a settled law that ad-interim relief cannot be denied in the face of a prima facie case, and if the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioners, and that they would suffer irreparable loss if such ad interim relief is not granted.

The appeal contended that it was obvious and apparent that the petitioners had a clear prima facie case because the recording of evidence before the trial court in their absence was not only a violation of Section 353 CrPC, but also their due process and fair trial rights under Article 10A of the Constitution.

Moreover, the balance of convenience, the petition said, was in favour of the petitioners since the prosecution would not be prejudiced if the trial was delayed for two weeks rather than the criminal revision application filed by the petitioners would become infructuous.

Published in Dawn, December 4th, 2025