Protection Desk
The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday directed the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to decide within two weeks the petitions seeking suspension of sentence filed by lawyer and rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, advocate Hadi Ali Chattha, while keeping the matter pending before itself until the high court reaches a decision.
A three-member bench headed by Justice Shahid Waheed heard the case, during which the couple’s counsel, Faisal Siddiqi, informed the court that the IHC had merely issued notices in the sentence appeals and had not held any further hearing for more than two months.
“There is no relief for us in the IHC,” Siddiqi argued, urging the apex court to direct the high court to decide the suspension petitions.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan observed, however, that no adverse order had been passed against the petitioners by the IHC. “There is no order against you from the high court,” he remarked, adding that the high court had not dismissed the pleas seeking suspension of sentence.
The judge also questioned the legal grounds for suspending a sentence. “What are the parameters for suspending a sentence? When is a sentence suspended?” Justice Afghan asked, noting that had the IHC rejected the pleas, the Supreme Court could then examine the merits of the case.
Siddiqi responded that the petitioners had been left without any effective remedy due to the delay in proceedings at the IHC. “When no relief has been granted by the IHC, where should we go?” he asked the bench.
Justice Waheed suggested that the court could direct the IHC to decide the matter within a fixed timeframe, after which the bench ordered the high court to decide the sentence suspension petitions within two weeks.
Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha were sentenced in January 2026 to a combined 17 years in prison on multiple charges linked to controversial social media posts. Prosecutors had argued that the posts promoted an anti-state narrative in violation of cybercrime laws.
Last month, Imaan moved the Supreme Court seeking suspension of her sentence after the IHC did not list her application for hearing. In her petition, filed through Faisal Siddiqi, she argued that despite requests by her counsel, the IHC had only issued notices on February 19 and had not suspended the trial court’s judgment.
The petition further contended that the trial court’s order was illegal and mala fide, alleging violations of due process protections guaranteed under Articles 10 and 10A of the Constitution. It also claimed breaches of several provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, including Sections 233, 234, 353, 367 and 526.