ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has dissolved the bench hearing the appeals filed by human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her spouse Hadi Ali Chattha against their conviction in a case related to their controversial social media posts.
The IHC has ordered placing the case file before Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar for the constitution of a new bench.
Justice Muhammad Asif issued the order on Monday on an application filed by the appellants seeking an early hearing of their appeals and the suspension of their sentences.
During the proceedings, the counsel for the appellants, Riasat Ali Azad, argued that despite the matter being taken up on February 19, no effective date had been assigned for the hearing, prolonging his clients’ incarceration.
The court was informed that a bench comprising Justice Muhammed Azam Khan had previously heard proceedings involving the same appellants.
The order noted that in the interest of judicial consistency, continuity, and effective adjudication, the present appeal should also be placed before that bench.
Consequently, the court directed the office to place the case file before the CJ for appropriate orders regarding reassignment of the matter.
This development comes days after the previous hearing on February 27, when the government requested that the appeal be transferred to Justice Khan’s court, arguing that a similar matter had previously been heard there.
The assistant attorney general had submitted that it would be appropriate for the same bench to hear related matters.
However, the petitioner’s counsel opposed the move at that time, maintaining that no such case was pending before any other court. He noted that the present appeal had been heard by Justice Muhammad Asif since its inception.
On January 24, the sessions judge of the Islamabad-West Criminal Court sentenced Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha to a combined 17 years’ imprisonment and imposed fines of Rs36 million each.
The prosecution alleged that the human rights lawyers’ social media posts incited ethnic hatred, undermined public trust in state institutions, and falsely implicated the armed forces in terrorism and enforced disappearances.
On February 7, the couple challenged the trial court’s order in the IHC. In their appeal, the petitioners contended that the trial court failed to fulfil mandatory legal requirements and proceeded to announce the verdict despite a transfer application pending before the IHC.
They argued that, under the law, no judgment could be pronounced while a transfer petition remained undecided. They further submitted that the trial court undermined transparency by curtailing their right to defence.
