Social media posts case: IHC says pleas of Imaan, Chattha maintainable

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has ruled that the applications filed by lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, seeking suspension of their sentences in a case related to controversial social media posts are maintainable.

Justice Muhammad Azam Khan dismissed the prosecution’s miscellaneous application challenging the maintainability of the couple’s plea. The bench had reserved its verdict on Friday after hearing arguments from both sides and announced the decision on Saturday.

READ ALSO: Case filed under PECA: Imaan Mazari moves SC against IHC order

Imaan, a human rights activist and lawyer, and Chattha, an advocate, were handed a combined 17-year sentence on multiple charges linked to controversial social media posts in January 2026. According to the prosecution, the posts amounted to an anti-state narrative under cybercrime laws.

During the proceedings before the IHC, the prosecution had objected that the applications filed by Imaan and Chattha were premature. Following its ruling, the court adjourned the hearing on the sentence suspension applications indefinitely.

During Friday’s hearing, the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) raised objections to the maintainability of the applications as the agency counsel argued that the applications had been filed prematurely. “We request that our miscellaneous application be heard first. If the other miscellaneous application is heard before ours, our application will become ineffective,” the counsel submitted.

Counsel for Imaan and Chattha, Faisal Siddiqui, told the court that he was ready to present arguments on the miscellaneous application. “They are saying that if the applications for suspension of sentence are dismissed, then both matters should be heard together,” he argued. In March, Imaan approached the Supreme Court seeking suspension of her sentence, moving the apex court after the IHC did not list her application for hearing. Filed through Siddiqui, the petition stated that despite her counsel’s request to suspend the trial court’s judgment, the IHC merely issued notices on the suspension application on February 19, and that it did not suspend the petitioner’s sentence. Further, the petition argued that the trial court’s order was completely illegal and clearly malafide, as it violated due process requirements under Articles 10 and 10A of the Constitution, breaching mandatory provisions of Sections 233, 234, 353, 367, and 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026