The Supreme Court on Tuesday instructed the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to deliver a verdict within two weeks on the appeals filed by human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha. The couple seeks suspension of their sentences linked to a case involving controversial social media posts.
A three-judge bench comprising Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Shafi Siddiqui ordered that the case would remain pending before the Supreme Court until the IHC issues its ruling.
During the hearing, the couple’s lawyer, Faisal Siddiqi, contended that essential legal procedures were overlooked during the trial. He highlighted that the accused were denied the opportunity for cross-examination and that their statements under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not recorded. Siddiqi also criticized the IHC for keeping the petitions seeking sentence suspension pending for nearly two months.
He questioned which forum the accused should approach if the high court refused relief or if the Supreme Court opted not to examine the case’s merits. Justice Shahid Waheed acknowledged Mazari’s standing by remarking, “Imaan Mazari is the daughter of this country.”
The court noted that the IHC had only issued notices on the appeals but had yet to decide the case on its merits. Faisal Siddiqi reiterated that no relief had been granted by the IHC, and the appeals had remained unheard for over two months.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan observed that the high court had not passed any adverse orders against the petitioners, emphasizing that no dismissal of the suspension request had occurred. Justice Shahid Waheed suggested directing the IHC to expedite the hearings and decide within two weeks.
The bench also deliberated on the legal criteria for granting suspension of sentences and under what conditions such relief is appropriate. Justice Afghan remarked that if the IHC had denied the suspension plea, the Supreme Court could then consider the case’s merits.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court mandated the IHC to decide the appeals within a fortnight and ordered the matter to remain pending before the apex court until then.
On January 24, an Islamabad court sentenced Mazari and Chattha to 17 years of rigorous imprisonment each under several provisions of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). Additional District and Sessions Judge Afzal Majoka convicted the couple on charges related to promoting banned organizations and disseminating content hostile to state institutions.
The detailed verdict revealed that the prosecution proved charges under Sections 9, 10, and 26-A of PECA, covering glorification of offences, cyberterrorism, and spreading false information, respectively. The court imposed five years imprisonment and a Rs5 million fine each under Section 9; ten years imprisonment and Rs30 million fine each under Section 10; and two years imprisonment with a Rs1 million fine each under Section 26-A, all sentences to run concurrently.
The judgment noted that the couple, already in custody on another case, attended proceedings via video link after boycotting the hearing. Judge Majoka referred to a complaint filed in August 2025 by Sub-Inspector Sharooz Riaz, alleging that Mazari consistently shared offensive, misleading, and anti-state content on social media with her husband’s involvement.
The court found that posts shared between 2021 and 2025 promoted narratives aligned with banned groups such as the Balochistan Liberation Army and Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan. It cited content related to activist Mahrang Baloch, Pashtun politician Ali Wazir, and rights activist Manzoor Pashteen, concluding the posts supported proscribed organizations and individuals.
The verdict stated that the accused portrayed state institutions, particularly the armed forces, as engaged in terrorism and enforced disappearances, thereby undermining public trust and inciting ethnic animosity. The court dismissed the defense claim that these posts were mere personal opinions, emphasizing that PECA defines glorification as any praise or celebration of banned entities.
Furthermore, the judgment held that Mazari’s allegations about state-run torture cells and violence against peaceful Baloch activists constituted offenses under cyberterrorism provisions. Regarding false information charges, the court found the accused failed to provide evidence supporting claims of enforced disappearances despite repeatedly blaming the state in social media posts.
The prosecution’s case relied on testimonies from five witnesses, including National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency assistant director Imran Haider and complainant Sub-Inspector Sharooz Riaz.
This case has attracted significant attention from legal and human rights communities in Pakistan, where critics have expressed concerns about the application of cybercrime laws against dissenters and activists.
