- NCCIA argues SC cannot intervene in pending high court matters.
- Petition claims suspension decisions rest solely with relevant HC.
- IHC adjourns hearing of couple’s pleas over prosecution absence.
The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) has moved the Supreme Court seeking withdrawal of its May 12 order that directed the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to decide on the suspension of sentences pleas filed by lawyer and rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, in a case related to controversial tweets.
In January, a district and sessions court in the federal capital sentenced the couple to a total of 17 years in prison each under different sections of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) — just a day after their arrest in another case. The couple then moved the IHC against their sentence in early February.
Last month, the Supreme Court directed the IHC to decide the sentence suspension pleas of Imaan and Hadi by May 26.
The directives were issued by a three-member apex court bench, headed by Justice Shahid Waheed and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shafi Siddiqui, while hearing the couple’s plea seeking suspension of their sentences.
In a development today, the cybercrime probe body filed a plea in the SC and contended that the Supreme Court cannot interfere in matters that are already pending before a high court.
It argued that the authority to decide an application for suspension of sentence rests with the relevant high court, which is required to hear all parties and adjudicate the matter in accordance with the law.
The agency further stated that the Supreme Court, in its May 12 order, had issued directions to the IHC, while maintaining that such directives are inconsistent with the principle that pending proceedings must be determined by the concerned high court without interference. It urged the apex court to withdraw its order in the interest of equal treatment of all parties.
The NCCIA also argued that the accused are not entitled to any special concession or preferential treatment, adding that the principle of parity must be maintained in judicial proceedings.
It maintained that a party cannot directly approach the Supreme Court against a high court’s decision to issue notices to the opposing side for hearing.
The agency requested the Supreme Court to recall its May 12, 2026 order so that the matter may proceed before the relevant high court strictly in accordance with the law.
Meanwhile, in separate proceedings, the Islamabad High Court adjourned without hearing the suspension of sentences pleas filed by Imaan and Hadi after the special prosecution team failed to appear before the court.
The case was heard by Islamabad High Court Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, who was informed that three members had been appointed to the special prosecution team, but none were available at the time of hearing.
The prosecutor stated that one member had travelled from Lahore, while another was engaged in proceedings before Court No 1, preventing the team from appearing and advancing arguments.
Justice Khan observed that he had been nominated for mediation training and was present in court solely for this matter, adding that he had missed his 8:30am training class due to the proceedings.
During the hearing, he asked the prosecutor whether he was aware of the Supreme Court order in the case.
State Counsel Ali Azad Advocate responded that the time granted under the apex court order had already expired. The court was further informed that the petitions had been filed in light of the Supreme Court’s directions.
The couple’s lawyer Faisal Siddiqi suggested that the matter could be taken up once the prosecutor became free from proceedings in Court No 1. The prosecutor, however, requested that the case be fixed for either Thursday or the following Monday.
Justice Azam Khan then asked whether Siddiqi would be available on Thursday before fixing the next date. He subsequently fixed the matter for Thursday and adjourned proceedings until June 4.
Faisal Siddiqi urged the court to direct the prosecution not to seek further adjournments, citing repeated delays. The judge remarked that it was not appropriate to keep repeating such directions, adding that all parties were bound by the Supreme Court order.
2026-06-01 18:30:00
