SC Disposes of Imaan Mazari, Hadi Chattha Appeals
The Supreme Court on Wednesday disposed of appeals challenging the trial of human rights lawyers Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha in the barriers removal case, ruling it had become infructuous because the trial had already been completed.
A three-member bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar heard the appeals and observed that the matter was pending before the Islamabad High Court (IHC), making the proceedings infructuous. The apex court left the question of the petitions’ maintainability to the IHC.
What the court decided
Advocate Faisal Siddiqui told the bench the anti-terrorism court (ATC) had completed the entire trial in jail within 22 days.
“The trial has already been completed, and the case has now become infructuous,” Justice Mazhar observed during the hearing.
Siddiqui complained that the petitioners had to approach the Supreme Court to get their cases fixed for hearing before the high court, and that it had also failed to fix the case in time.
“Even if you hang us, at least hear the case,” he argued. “Let people retain at least the right to have their cases decided.”
Justice Mazhar responded that it was not the court’s responsibility to decide which cases should or should not be fixed for hearing. “We cannot say that this case should be fixed for hearing, nor can we say that it should not be fixed,” the judge observed.
The court disposed of the appeals as infructuous, leaving maintainability to the IHC.
The 22-day jail trial of Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chattha
On October 29, an ATC sentenced Imaan and Hadi to 10 years in prison each in the case involving the removal of security barriers. It convicted them under Section 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code (one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs50,000 each) and Section 353 (two years and a fine of Rs50,000 each). Both were further convicted under Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and given 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs100,000 each.
The two lawyers were arrested by the capital police in October 2024 after a confrontation with traffic police, who had erected barricades to secure the movement of the English cricket team. They were accused of interfering with government protocol.
The ATC framed charges on October 7, recorded statements from all seven prosecution witnesses, and shifted the trial to Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail amid disputes over the accused’s production in court and defence lawyers’ access.
The defence maintained that the trial court had started proceedings in haste, recording the statements of prosecution witnesses in a single day. The couple also said they had not been physically present when the charges were framed and had not received copies of the documents.
How the case reached the Supreme Court
Last Friday, Imaan and Hadi filed appeals against their convictions in the IHC, along with applications seeking suspension of their sentences and release on bail.
On October 26, they had approached the Supreme Court against an IHC decision on their request to halt the proceedings, arguing that unless the trial was stayed at once, their pending application before the high court would become ineffective. A day later, the ATC reserved its verdict after the trial concluded at Adiala Jail.
The couple had also approached the IHC last month, seeking suspension of the trial over alleged procedural violations during the framing of charges. The IHC dismissed their request for an interim order seeking the removal of anti-terrorism provisions, but issued notices to the relevant parties on their separate plea seeking suspension of the trial.
The ATC had earlier ordered the jail authorities to allow the couple to meet their legal team, after the defence raised the issue of access during the jail trial.
What happens next
The order does not decide the merits of the convictions. It only ends the proceedings that challenged the trial, because that trial has now concluded.
The couple’s appeals against their sentences remain before the IHC, along with their applications for suspension of the sentences and release on bail. The high court must now decide whether those petitions are maintainable and hear them on merit if so.
The case has drawn close attention from the legal community. Lawyers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are on strike over the suspension of the Peshawar High Court’s powers, and a separate challenge to the emergency in the province is also before the courts. The Supreme Court has separately set out eight principles for cancelling bail, which will shape how the high court handles bail pleas in cases of this kind.
For Imaan and Hadi, the immediate question is whether the IHC fixes their appeals for hearing and decides their bail request while the appeals are pending.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Supreme Court decide on Wednesday?
It disposed of the appeals challenging the trial of Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha, ruling that the matter had become infructuous because the anti-terrorism court had already completed the trial.
What sentences did the ATC hand down?
On October 29, the ATC sentenced both lawyers to 10 years in prison each, along with shorter sentences and fines under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Why did the couple approach the Supreme Court?
They said the high court had not stayed the trial and the Supreme Court had not fixed their case for hearing in time, so they sought an order to halt the proceedings before the trial concluded.
What is still pending before the Islamabad High Court?
Their appeals against the convictions, along with applications seeking suspension of their sentences and release on bail pending the outcome of the appeals.
What does “infructuous” mean here?
It means the proceedings no longer serve a purpose, because the trial they challenged has already finished. The court therefore ended those proceedings without deciding the underlying dispute.
