The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on Monday challenged the Supreme Court order dated May 12 directing the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to decide the applications of human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha for suspension of their sentences within two weeks.
NCCIA Petition Details
The NCCIA filed an application before the apex court, requesting it to recall and withdraw the 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."
Background of the Case
The sessions court in January sentenced the duo to 10 years' imprisonment under Section 10 (cyber terrorism), five years under Section 9 (glorification of an offence), and two years under Section 26-A (false and fake information) of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Peca). In December 2025, Imaan and her husband moved the apex court to set aside the IHC's decision denying interim relief in the controversial social media post case. The Supreme Court on May 12 ordered the IHC to decide the couple's suspension of sentence applications within two weeks.
Legal Arguments
The NCCIA contended that the couple invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution under the pretext of an "order" in which the IHC 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.
The NCCIA underscored the Supreme Court's consistent and long-standing practice of not interfering in matters pending before high courts at the initial or interlocutory stage, except in extraordinary or highly exceptional circumstances. It said the couple approached the Supreme Court 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.
Allegations of Special Treatment
The NCCIA contended that 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 evident from their petition before the Supreme Court. The NCCIA argued that the main grievance of the couple before the Supreme Court 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 Supreme Court'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.
Call for Fairness
The NCCIA further stated that before passing any direction to the IHC, the Supreme Court should have called for a report of pending appeals and applications for suspension of 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. It said after the Supreme Court hearing, Imaan's mother categorically stated that by issuing the May 12 order, the Supreme Court had "accepted" the IHC's bias against her daughter. "Her statement is clearly creating doubts on the independence of the judiciary," the petition said.
