ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday took up appeals filed by human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, against an anti-terrorism court (ATC) order rejecting their petitions challenging the framing of charges and the inclusion of terrorism-related provisions in the security breach case.
A division bench comprising Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas and Justice Shahrukh Arjumand heard the matter, with Riasat Ali Azad, Zainab Janjua and other lawyers appearing before the court.
At the outset, Justice Minhas asked whether the accused had received copies of the relevant documents. Counsel Riasat Ali Azad replied in the negative and said he wanted to examine how the charges had been framed.
The counsel argued that the ATC had passed the impugned order without the requisite authority to do so. He said the case had remained pending before the court of Judge Abual Hasanat Mohammad Zulqarnain from March 12, 2025, until recently.
Citing the precedent in the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case, Azad argued that the court in which the challan was submitted was the one authorised to hear the case.
He further contended that the accused had not been provided with copies of the relevant documents and that the charges had not been read out in their presence, as they were not physically present in the courtroom at the time.
“Legal proceedings cannot move forward in the absence of the accused,” the counsel argued, adding that the charge must be framed in the presence of the accused. He also alleged a violation of a decision of the National Judicial Policy Making Committee.
Describing the charge as the foundation of a trial, Azad maintained that any defect in its framing would undermine the legality of the subsequent proceedings.
Justice Minhas asked whether the trial was being conducted through a video link. The counsel replied that the proceedings had initially taken place through a video link but had shifted to a jail trial at the most recent hearing.
The judge also inquired whose signatures appeared on the charge document. Azad said the document bore his signature, but lacked those of the accused, which, according to him, were legally required.
Justice Minhas questioned whether the proceedings could not be conducted through a video link, observing that the accused had been connected through the facility and that their attendance had been recorded when the charges were framed.
The counsel, however, insisted that the accused were not present when he signed the documents and requested the court to summon the video recording of the proceedings.
He also said the copies had not been delivered to the accused in jail and that an affidavit had been submitted to this effect.
Justice Minhas remarked that it appeared the defence had not intended to accept the copies. Azad responded that every application filed by the defence before the ATC had been rejected.
He said the defence had requested both the case record and the video recording of the proceedings.
The judge subsequently asked where it was stipulated that the accused must be physically produced for the framing of charges.
Azad reiterated that the appeals also challenged the inclusion of anti-terrorism provisions in the case and repeatedly urged the high court to halt the trial.
“We shall see; we will let you know,” Justice Minhas remarked.
At this point, Janjua informed the court that the jail trial was scheduled to take place at 2:30pm on Monday.
Justice Minhas said the court would issue an order and inform the parties accordingly. He concluded that notices had been issued and the court would decide how to proceed once the responses were received.
Imaan and Hadi were indicted in the case on Oct 7, and both accused were produced via video link. Hadi objected to the framing of charges, stating that he had not yet been provided copies of the case documents. He argued that charges could not be framed before completion of all legal formalities.
Advocate Janjua also opposed the indictment, submitting that neither of them had been provided copies of the case record. She further contended that both the accused had not been allowed to meet their lawyers, and therefore, the requirements for framing charges had not been fulfilled.
The case pertains to the alleged disruption of the security route of an international cricket team and incitement to public unrest.
Imaan and Hadi’s rearrest
The lawyer couple has been in jail since their arrest on Jan 23 in a case registered against them for protesting outside the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. The arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial.
Just a day later, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years on multiple charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) in a case pertaining to controversial social media posts.
The convictions were widely condemned by lawyers and United Nations (UN) experts.
On Sept 17, following months of litigation before the courts, the Supreme Court suspended their sentences in the case. The SC ordered their release pending the Islamabad High Court’s final verdict on their appeals against the trial court’s decision.
However, the reprieve was short-lived as hours later, Islamabad police arrested the couple again in connection with another case and produced them before an ATC, which sent them to jail on judicial remand.
The fresh case in which the two were arrested was registered at the federal capital’s Kohsar police station on March 22 last year on the complaint of City Magistrate Ghulam Murtaza Chandio.
Imaan and her husband were accused of chanting anti-government slogans and blocking roads and were nominated by name in the FIR. However, at the time of registration of the case, no section of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) had been added.
The FIR included sections 188 (disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), 353 (assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their official duty) and 186 (obstructing a public servant in the performance of official duties).