ISLAMABAD: The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on Monday challenged before the Supreme Court (SC) its May 12 order directing the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to decide within two weeks the sentence suspension pleas of lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posts case.

Although the SC’s deadline expired on May 26, the IHC on Monday adjourned the hearing at the prosecution’s request. The lawyer couple, who had been sentenced on Jan 24, filed appeals against their conviction in February. More than three months later, the SC instructed the IHC to decide their petitions within two weeks.

In its petition, the NCCIA asked the SC to recall and withdraw the May 12 order, arguing that doing so would preserve judiciary’s sanctity and independence, ensure equality among citizens, and avoid granting preferential treatment to the couple for being lawyers.

It argued that the couple had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting SC intervention in a matter already pending before the IHC. In December 2025, it noted, Ms Mazari and Mr Chattha had approached the SC seeking to overturn an IHC decision refusing interim relief in the case. They argued that the IHC had unlawfully declined to stay the criminal trial and that evidence had been recorded in their absence, allegedly violating Section 353 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and their constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution.

IHC adjourns hearing of pleas to June 4 due to absence of lawyers

The NCCIA claimed that the couple invoked the SC’s jurisdiction under Article 185(3) based me­­rely on an IHC order issuing notices and observing that their contentions required consideration. The issuance of notices did not constitute a “judgement, decree, order, or sentence appealable before the SC”, it stated, which renders their appeal non-maintainable.

It argued that the couple’s grievance was primarily that their applications for early hearing had not been fixed or heard, a matter in which superior courts generally do not intervene unless there is grave illegality, urgency, or a compelling need to advance justice. It maintained every court had its own system for managing cases according to urgency and that the couple appeared more focused on obtaining a decision on their Section 426 CrPC application for suspension of sentence than on pursuing their main criminal appeals.

The NCCIA alleged the couple had portrayed themselves as victims by claiming violations of Section 353, CrPC, and fair trial rights, while trial court proceedings contradicted those assertions. It argued their principal complaint before the SC was the non-fixation of their sentence suspension applications, yet the SC’s direction to the IHC effectively afforded them “special treatment” as they were lawyers.

The petition noted that the lawyers had filed petitions against the IHC chief justice alleging har­­assment. It also referenced comments made by Ms Mazari’s mother after the SC hearing, in which she stated that the May 12 order demonstrated the SC’s acceptance of allegations of IHC “bias” against her daughter. According to the NCCIA, such remarks could create doubts about judicial independence.

Earlier, IHC Justice Muhammad Azam Khan took up the couple’s pleas but adjo­u­rned proceedings due to the absence of two members of the three-person special prosecution team. The at­­ten­ding prosecutor informed the court that one colleague was travelling from Lahore and an­­other was appearing before the IHC chief justice.

Justice Khan noted that he had specifically attended court for the hearing despite being nominated for mediation training and asked whether the prosecution was aware of the SC’s directions. Petitioners’ counsel Riasat Ali Azad pointed out that the SC deadline had already expired, while counsel Faisal Siddiqui urged that one prosecutor should attend after completing other commitments.

The judge observed that he had already ad­­justed his schedule and missed a mediation training session to hear the matter. After the prosecution requested an adjournment until Thursday or the following Monday, the court, after consulting both sides, fixed the hearing for June 4.

When Mr Siddiqui requested that no further adjournments be sought, Justice Khan remarked that all parties were bound to comply with the SC’s order and did not require repeated reminders.

Published in Dawn, June 2nd, 2026