0
• Bench observes matter to remain pending before SC until high court decides
• Petitioners’ lawyer argues trial violations, including lack of cross-examination
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to decide within two weeks the pleas of human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, seeking suspension of their sentence in the controversial social media posts case.
Until the IHC decides upon the petitions, the matter will remain pending before the SC, stated a three-judge bench comprising Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shafi Siddiqui.
During the hearing, the couple’s lawyer, Faisal Siddiqi H, argued that the legal requirements were not met in the trial against his clients. He asserted that they did not get the opportunity to be cross-examined and statements under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code were also not recorded.
He presented his arguments as the SC took up the couple’s plea seeking to set aside an IHC order denying interim relief to them in the case.
The lawyer said that the IHC had kept his clients’ pleas for the suspension of their sentences pending despite the passage of two months.
“Which court should the accused go to if the high court denies relief or if the SC chooses not to go into the merits of the case,” the counsel argued.
At this, Justice Siddiqui wondered how the SC could interfere in a matter which fell under the jurisdiction of the high court.
The lawyer contended that the SC could hear applications seeking the suspension of a sentence without the high court’s final decision. He said that if the court asked him to, he could explain the circumstances his clients were facing.
Justice Waheed, however, observed that the SC was aware of the circumstances the appellants were facing, since they had mentioned the details in their applications.
“Now there are two options: one is to direct the high court to decide the matter and the second is to give instructions to the high court and keep this application pending in the SC,” Justice Waheed suggested.
The lawyer suggested keeping the matter pending before the SC while issuing instructions to the IHC. In this way, the shadow of the SC will remain upon the high court, the counsel argued.
“Not only the shadow of the Supreme Court, but also of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC),” Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan observed. The judge also reminded that the IHC did not dismiss the request for the suspension of the sentences.
Justice Afghan explained that if a high court rejected the request for suspension of sentence, then the SC could go into the merits of the case.
“To me, the SC is the only superior court in the country,” the couple’s lawyer responded.
“Don’t say this. The FCC has been established under the Constitution and all lawyers appear before it regularly,” Justice Afghan responded, adding that bringing amendments to the Constitution was Parliament’s prerogative.
The counsel, however, contended that the SC was the highest court to decide appeals in criminal matters. He contended that Imaan was like a sister to him and, above all, a daughter of this country.
Published in Dawn, May 13th, 2026
