ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday restrained the Anti-Terrorism Court from framing charges against veteran journalist Matiullah Jan and directed the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to expeditiously decide the challenge to the terrorism charges invoked against him.

Headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, a three-judge Supreme Court bench took up a plea filed by the journalist seeking to set aside the IHC’s Feb 23, 2026 order denying ad-interim relief to stay the criminal trial against him.

During the hearing, the prosecution department did not object to the issuance of directions to the high court. The Supreme Court observed that it would not go into the merits of the case at this stage so that the proceedings are not prejudiced in favour of any party.

Barrister Qadeer Janjua represented Matiullah Jan. In the petition, the journalist raised questions about the jurisdiction of the trial court and the applicability of terrorism charges against him.

Filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the petition challenged the IHC’s Feb 23 order, which, while issuing notices in the criminal revision petition, refused to grant any ad-interim relief—effectively allowing the trial before the Anti-Terrorism Court to continue uninterrupted, with the framing of charges imminent.

Matiullah Jan, a senior journalist with over three decades of experience, was arrested on Nov 28, 2024, at a police checkpoint in Sector E-9, Islamabad. An FIR was registered at Police Station Margalla, alleging that the journalist, in an intoxicated condition, snatched a constable’s official weapon, pointed it at police personnel, and threatened them. It was further alleged that 10 grams of “ice” (crystal methamphetamine) was recovered from his possession.

The petition argued that the high court’s order suffers from patent illegality. The primary challenge in the criminal revision concerns the very jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. If the trial court is allowed to proceed unchecked—particularly to the stage of framing charges — the purpose of the revision challenging the court’s jurisdiction would be defeated.

The petition contended that the high court, by merely issuing notices and not staying the proceedings, failed to protect the rights of the petitioner, thereby committing an error apparent on the face of the record. It further argued that the high court failed to exercise its discretion to grant ad-interim relief despite the existence of a prima facie case, a balance of convenience in favour of the journalist, and the risk of irreparable loss.

The petition stated that the journalist has an overwhelmingly strong prima facie case, noting that the trial court itself, while granting bail, observed that the prosecution’s case was “full of doubts.” Furthermore, the forensic report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA) refuted the primary narcotics allegation by confirming that the recovered substance was not “ice.”

The petition further argued that the law on what constitutes “terrorism” is well-settled by the Supreme Court’s 2020 judgement in the Ghulam Hussain case, which requires a specific design to spread terror.

Published in Dawn, April 3rd, 2026