The Islamabad High Court on Monday took up appeals. In fact, they were filed by human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha. Specifically, the appeals challenge an anti-terrorism court order. Indeed, that order rejected their petitions against the framing of charges. Moreover, it also covered the inclusion of terrorism provisions in the security breach case. The Imaan Mazari Hadi IHC appeal was heard by a division bench. In fact, it comprised Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas and Justice Shahrukh Arjumand.
Riasat Ali Azad, Zainab Janjua and other lawyers appeared for the couple. At the outset, Justice Minhas asked whether the accused had received copies of the relevant documents. However, Azad replied in the negative. Specifically, he said he wanted to examine how the charges had been framed.
Defence says ATC lacked authority
The counsel argued that the ATC had passed the impugned order without the requisite authority. He said the case had remained pending before Judge Abual Hasanat Mohammad Zulqarnain’s court since March 12, 2025. In addition, citing the precedent in the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case, Azad argued one point. Specifically, he said the court in which the challan was submitted was the one authorised to hear the case.
He further contended the accused had not been given copies of the case documents. Moreover, he added that the charges had not been read out in their presence. “Legal proceedings cannot move forward in the absence of the accused.” He argued. Furthermore, he added that a charge must be framed in the presence of the accused. Finally, he also alleged a violation of a decision of the National Judicial Policy Making Committee.
Video link versus jail trial
Justice Minhas asked whether the trial was being conducted through a video link. The counsel replied that proceedings had initially taken place through a video link. However, they had shifted to a jail trial at the most recent hearing.
The judge also asked whose signatures appeared on the charge document. Azad said the document bore his signature. However, it lacked those of the accused. He said these were legally required. Justice Minhas questioned whether the proceedings could not continue through the video link. In addition, he noted the accused had been connected. Their attendance was recorded when charges were framed.
The counsel insisted the accused were absent when he signed. In addition, he asked the court to summon the video recording. He said the copies had not reached the accused in jail. Indeed, an affidavit confirmed this. Justice Minhas remarked the defence seemed unwilling to accept the copies. Azad replied that every defence application before the ATC had been rejected.
Imaan Mazari Hadi IHC appeal: what happens next
Azad repeatedly urged the high court to halt the trial. Furthermore, he urged it to strike down the anti-terrorism provisions added to the case. “We shall see; we will let you know.” Justice Minhas remarked. Janjua informed the court that the jail trial was scheduled for 2:30pm on Monday. The court issued notices. Finally, it said it would inform the parties how to proceed once responses were received.
The case timeline so far
The couple were indicted in the case on October 7. Meanwhile, both were produced via video link. Hadi objected then. Specifically, he said he had not been given copies of the case documents. Janjua argued the charge requirements had not been met. She said the accused had not been allowed to meet their lawyers. An earlier bail hearing on October 5 also ran into trouble. In fact, the investigating officer failed to appear.
The case concerns the alleged disruption of the security route of an international cricket team. In addition, it also concerns incitement to public unrest. The couple has been in jail since their arrest on January 23. Specifically, the arrest was in a case registered over a protest outside the IHC. A day later, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years. This was under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act. In fact, it followed controversial social media posts. The verdict was condemned by UN experts and the legal community. On September 17 the Supreme Court suspended those sentences. It ordered their release on bail. However, hours later police rearrested them in the present case. It was registered at Kohsar police station. Finally, the complaint came from City Magistrate Ghulam Murtaza Chandio.
Frequently asked questions
What are Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha appealing?
They are challenging the ATC’s rejection of their petitions. These concern the framing of charges and the terrorism provisions in the case.
What is the defence’s main argument?
Their counsel argues the ATC lacked authority to pass the order. In addition, he says the charges were framed without the accused present. He also says copies of the case documents were never provided.
When is the next hearing in the case?
A jail trial was scheduled for 2:30pm on Monday. The IHC has issued notices. It will decide how to proceed after receiving responses.
What is the security breach case about?
It concerns the alleged disruption of the security route of an international cricket team. Moreover, it also concerns incitement to public unrest. The case was registered at Kohsar police station in Islamabad.
