ISLAMABAD(National Times)- The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on Monday challenged before the Supreme Court its May 12 order that required the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to decide in two weeks the sentence suspension pleas of lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posts case.
Meanwhile, despite the SC’s May 26 deadline having passed already, the IHC today, on the request of the prosecution, adjourned the hearing of Imaan and Hadi’s pleas seeking suspension of their sentences.
The husband-wife duo were sentenced in the case on January 24, with subsequent petitions being filed against their conviction in early February. On May 12, more than three months after the pleas were filed, the SC gave the IHC two weeks to decide on the lawyer couple’s petitions.
On Monday, the NCCIA requested the SC to recall and withdraw that order to help preserve the “sanctity and independence of the judiciary, maintaining equality among citizens and avoiding discriminatory treatment towards the couple merely on account of being members of the Bar”.
The petition claimed that no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances have been pointed out by the couple in their earlier plea that warranted an intervention by the SC in a pending matter before the IHC.
In December 2025, Imaan and her husband had moved the SC to set aside IHC’s decision that denied interim relief in the controversial social media post case.
They had argued that the high court had “erroneously and illegally refused” to exercise the discretion to grant ad-interim relief to them to stay the criminal trial, as recording of evidence before the trial court in their absence was not only a violation of Section 353 CrPC, but also their due process and fair trial rights under Article 10A of the Constitution.
Now, the NCCIA has contended that the couple had invoked the jurisdiction of the SC under Article 185(3) of the Constitution under the pretext of an “order” in which IHC had issued notices to the respondents with an observation that the contentions raised need consideration.
“The issuance of ‘notice’ does not fall in the ambit of Article 185(3) as the appeal can only lie to the Supreme Court from a ‘judgment’, ‘decree’, ‘order’ or ‘sentence of a high court. Hence their appeal was not maintainable,” the petition argued.
NCCIA underscored SC’s consistent and long-standing practice of not interfering in matters pending before high courts on the initial/interlocutory stage, except in extraordinary or highly exceptional circumstances.
But the couple had approached the SC with the grievance that their applications for early hearing were not fixed or heard. Normally, the superior courts avoid intervention in such matters unless there is a situation where grave illegality is committed, or to foster justice or the matter is of an urgent nature, the petition argued.
Every court has its own mechanism for dispensation of justice and also has an independent system to entertain and fix the cases according to the “urgency” pointed out by the applicant.
But here, the NCCIA contended, the couple seemed not interested in the fixation of their criminal appeals; rather, they were insistent on getting a decision on their application filed under Section 426 of the CrPC. For that purpose, they filed two applications for early hearing, a fact which was evident from their petition filed before the SC.
The couple, the petition claimed, had pleaded violation of Section 353 of the CrPC by the trial court and were playing victim and innocent before the SC by allegedly making their own story to politicise the issue and pressurise the courts, when the proceedings of the trial court belie their assertions.
The NCCIA argued that the main grievance of the couple before the SC was that they had been denied a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution, as their two applications for early hearing of applications for suspension of sentence were not fixed.
But the SC’s binding order to the IHC seemed to give “special treatment” to Imaan and Hadi for being members of the Bar, the petition feared.
The same treatment was accorded to them by the trial court when they remained hostile and derogatory, as the trial court showed “restraint” from passing any adverse order against them, the NCCIA asserted.
It further said that before passing any direction to the IHC, the SC should have called for a report of pending appeals and applications for the suspension of the sentences before the high court so that principles of fairness, equality and impartiality were maintained and to avoid an impression of extraordinary treatment to the petitioners.
The NCCIA highlighted that the lawyers had also filed petitions against the IHC chief justice alleging harassment, and Imaan’s mother, after the SC hearing, had categorically said that by issuing the May 12 order, the SC had “accepted” the IHC’s bias against her daughter.
“Her statement is clearly creating doubts on the independence of judiciary,” the petition said.
IHC hearing
Earlier in the day, IHC’s Justice Muhammad Azam Khan took up Imaan and Hadi’s pleas today, but the hearing was adjourned due to the absence of two of the three special prosecution team members.
The prosecutor who attended the hearing informed the court that one of his team members was travelling from Lahore while another was engaged in proceedings before the IHC chief justice.
At that, Justice Khan remarked that he was specifically at the court for the hearing of Imaan’s and Hadi’s pleas despite being nominated for mediation training. Addressing the prosecutor, he asked whether the prosecution was aware of the Supreme Court’s directions in the case.
Regarding that, one of the counsels for the petitioners, Advocate Riasat Ali Azad, noted that the deadline set by the Supreme Court had already expired.
Justice Khan observed that the petitions had been filed in light of the SC’s May 12 order.
Another counsel for the petitioners, Faisal Siddiqui, argued that one of the prosecutors should appear before the court after completing his commitments in the IHC CJ’s court.
Justice Khan noted that he had already heard cases in the morning and had even missed his mediation training session scheduled for 8:30am to attend the proceedings of Imaan’s and Hadi’s pleas.
The prosecutor requested the court to adjourn the hearing till Thursday or next Monday. After consulting the petitioners’ counsels regarding their availability, Justice Khan fixed the hearing for Thursday, June 4.
At that, Siddiqui requested that the prosecution be restrained from seeking any further adjournments. In response, Justice Khan remarked that repeated reminders were unnecessary as all parties were bound to comply with the SC order.
The case
Imaan and Hadi have been in jail since their arrest in January in a case registered against the two for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president.
While the arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians, and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years in prison in the social media posts case just a day after the development.
The controversy at the centre of the case stems from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by the NCCIA Islamabad assistant director (investigating officer) before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre, FIA, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Peca).
The complaint accused Imaan of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations”, while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts.
In January, the sessions court sentenced the duo to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 10 (cyber terrorism), five years’ imprisonment under Section 9 (glorification of an offence) and two years’ imprisonment under Section 26-A (false and fake information) of Peca.
Subsequently, they challenged their conviction by filing separate criminal appeals in the IHC on February 7.
On April 30, the duo had moved another appeal in the SC, seeking an early hearing of their pleas against their conviction.
Moved under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the application requested the grant of leave to appeal against the Feb 19 IHC order. Through that order, the IHC had admitted the appeal against the trial court’s Jan 24 decision of handing down a 17-year sentence to the couple.
And while it had issued notices to the respondents on the application for the suspension of sentence, it had not suspended the sentence.
The petition contended that the appeals be accepted and the sentence awarded to the petitioners through the impugned trial court’s judgment be suspended till the disposal of the criminal appeal pending before the IHC.
On May 12, the SC asked the IHC to decide within two weeks the pleas seeking the suspension of their sentences.
Until the IHC decides upon the petitions, the matter will remain pending before the apex court, a three-judge SC bench, consisting of Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shafi Siddiqui, observed.
Then, on May 20, the IHC issued notices to officials of the NCCIA on applications requesting an expedited hearing of the sentence suspension petitions.
It was a day after Justice Khan raised objections over the non-submission of certified copies of the SC order and directed the defence counsel to submit the certified order through the court office in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Following the submission of the certified copy, the case was fixed for June 1. But the hearing again had to be adjourned today due to the prosecutors’ absence.
