Hassaan Niazi LHC Petition Faces Dismissal Call
Hassaan Niazi LHC petition proceedings took a new turn on Monday, November 2, 2026, as the Punjab government and the defence ministry both asked the Lahore High Court (LHC) to dismiss his plea. Niazi, a barrister and the nephew of PTI founder Imran Khan, challenges his handover to the army and his trial in a case linked to the May 9, 2023 riots.
The Punjab government filed its report after almost a year, through the home secretary and the inspector general of police. The deputy inspector general of police (legal) argued that a civilian who commits an offence against the state and is convicted cannot claim fundamental rights protection, citing a 2005 LHC judgment, PLD 2005 LAH 721.
The report described Niazi as a convicted prisoner. It argued that his release through a second round of litigation, other than by way of appeal, was not permissible. It also said no judicial order was required for his handover because he was neither in judicial custody nor on remand at the time.
Hassaan Niazi LHC petition: the Punjab case
Punjab’s report drew a line between Niazi and 16 co-accused. Those 16 were in jail when their transfer was sought from an anti-terrorism court, the report said. Niazi, by contrast, was an absconder, it argued.
The report added that the Sarwar Road station house officer neither handed over custody nor received the commanding officer’s letter; the investigation in-charge, who is not a party to the petition, took that step, it claimed.
It also argued that Niazi had misread the Supreme Court’s short order of May 7, 2025, which upheld military trials while granting a right of appeal, not a right to file constitutional petitions. Niazi had already filed an appeal under Section 133-B of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, the report added, and the same question cannot be challenged in two forums at once. It accused him of concealing facts about that appeal, his father Hafeezullah Khan Niazi’s earlier proceedings, and the anti-terrorism court’s order of May 25, 2023. ## The defence ministry reply
The defence ministry filed a separate reply through an additional attorney general, signed by an assistant judge advocate general, the army’s legal branch at Headquarters 4 Corps. It said Niazi went to Jinnah House on May 9, 2023, where he made videos and passed sarcastic remarks about the Corps Commander’s uniform.
“The incident impacted the image of Pakistan and was prejudicial to the safety and interest of the state,” the reply said. It said Niazi, held at Kot Lakhpat Jail, was convicted by a Field General Court Martial and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, read with Section 59 of the Army Act.
The ministry argued that the petition was barred by Articles 199(3) and 8(3) of the Constitution, which exclude matters related to armed forces personnel proceedings from the high courts’ purview. It said Niazi already had an appeal pending under Section 133-B before the army court of appeals, and that the Supreme Court’s May 7, 2025 short order restored Sections 2(1)(d) and 59(4) of the Army Act without striking down Section 133-B.
Frequently asked questions
What does the Hassaan Niazi LHC petition challenge?
The petition challenges Niazi’s handover to the army and his subsequent military trial in a case linked to the May 9, 2023 riots.
What did the Punjab government argue?
Punjab argued that Niazi is a convicted prisoner, that release through a second round of litigation other than appeal is not permissible, and that no judicial order was needed for the handover because he was neither in judicial custody nor on remand.
What did the defence ministry argue?
The ministry argued that Articles 199(3) and 8(3) bar the high court from hearing the case, that Niazi already has an appeal pending under Section 133-B of the Army Act, and that his alleged offence involved a prohibited military installation.
What sentence did Niazi receive?
According to the Punjab report, a military court sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment in December 2024. The defence reply says he received 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, read with Section 59 of the Army Act.
What happens next in the case?
The court must decide whether the petition is maintainable or barred, and whether to hear it on its merits. Both the Punjab government and the defence ministry have asked for dismissal.
