• Claims IHC failed to follow court’s May 12 directives
• Insists delays have kept her behind bars for more than 140 days despite pending appeal

ISLAMABAD: Rights activist Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir on Friday moved the Supreme Court with an application seeking an early hearing of her criminal appeal, in which she challenged the Islam­abad High Court’s (IHC) Feb 19, 2026, refusal to suspend her 17-year sentence in the controversial social media posts case.

Earlier, on July 21, the Supreme Court had adjourned the hearing in the case on the ground that the IHC had already fixed her application for suspension of sentence in the main appeal for July 24. However, the apex court observed that if any urgency arose, the appellant could move an application for an early hearing.

Subsequently, the high court declared the petitions filed by Ms Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chatta, inadmissible.

Moved through senior counsel Faisal Siddiqi, the fresh application requested the Supreme Court to suspend the Jan 24, 2026, judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, which sentenced the petitioner to 17 years’ imprisonment, until the disposal of the pending criminal appeal.

The application recalled that, through its order dated May 12, 2026, the Supreme Court had directed the IHC to decide the petitioner’s application for suspension of sentence as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks.

Pursuant to that order, the application for suspension of sentence was fixed for hearing before the IHC on June 1. How­ever, the proceedings could not continue because the Special Public Prosecutor sought an adjournment despite strong opposition from the petitioner’s counsel.

More importantly, the high court itself observed on June 1 that the Supreme Court had issued binding directions requiring the matter to be decided within a specified timeframe. It was for this reason that the application for suspension of sentence was adjourned to the short date of June 4.

On July 21, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter after being told the suspension plea was fixed before the IHC on July 24, while allowing the petitioner to seek an urgent hearing if needed

The application alleged that, in an attempt to further undermine the timeline set by the Supreme Court in its May 12 order, the respondents filed a frivolous application challenging the maintainability of the petitioner’s suspension application before the IHC. Although the application was dismissed the same day, the IHC, through the same order, did not fix any date for hearing the suspension application, allegedly in violation of the binding directions issued by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the petitioner filed another urgent application on July 27, but it was not fixed for hearing before the IHC.

“In short, the binding directions of the Supreme Court have been flouted and disregarded,” the application alleged.

Published in Dawn, August 1st, 2026