IHC issues notices in response to appeals filed by Imaan, Chattha

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) issued notices on appeals filed by human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, challenging an anti-terrorism court’s (ATC) decision to dismiss their pleas against the framing of charges and the inclusion of terrorism-related provisions in a case registered against them.

A division bench of the IHC comprising Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas and Justice Shahrukh Arjumand on Monday heard the matter while Riasat Ali Azad, Zainab Janjua and other lawyers, representing Imaan and Chattha, appeared before the court.

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Minhas asked whether the accused had received copies of the relevant documents.

Counsel Riasat Ali Azad replied in the negative and said he wanted to examine how the charges had been framed.

The counsel argued that the ATC had passed the impugned order without the requisite authority to do so. He said the case had remained pending before the court of Judge Abual Hasanat Mohammad Zulqarnain from March 12, 2025, until recently.

Citing the precedent in the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case, Azad argued that the court in which the challan was submitted was the one authorised to hear the case.

He further contended that the accused had not been provided with copies of the relevant documents and that the charges had not been read out in their presence, as they were not physically present in the courtroom at the time.

The counsel argued that the legal proceedings cannot move forward in the absence of the accused, adding that the charges must be framed in the presence of the accused.

He also alleged a violation of a decision of the National Judicial Policy Making Committee.

Describing the charge as the foundation of a trial, Azad maintained that any defect in its framing would undermine the legality of the subsequent proceedings.

Justice Minhas asked whether the trial was being conducted through a video link.

The counsel replied that the proceedings had initially taken place through a video link but had shifted to a jail trial at the most recent hearing.

The judge also inquired whose signatures appeared on the charge document.

Azad said the document bore his signature, but lacked those of the accused, which, according to him, were legally required.

Justice Minhas questioned whether the proceedings could not be conducted through a video link, observing that the accused had been connected through the facility and that their attendance had been recorded when the charges were framed.

The counsel, however, insisted that the accused were not present when he signed the documents and requested the court to summon the video recording of the proceedings.

He also said the copies had not been delivered to the accused in jail, and that an affidavit had been submitted to this effect.

Justice Minhas remarked that it appeared the defence had not intended to accept the copies.

Azad responded that every application filed by the defence before the ATC had been rejected.

He said the defence had requested both the case record and the video recording of the proceedings.

The judge subsequently asked where it was stipulated that the accused must be physically produced for the framing of charges.

Azad reiterated that the appeals also challenged the inclusion of anti-terrorism provisions in the case and repeatedly urged the high court to halt the trial.

“We shall see; we will let you know,” Justice Minhas remarked.

Justice Minhas said the court would issue an order and inform the parties accordingly. He concluded that notices had been issued, and the court would decide how to proceed once the responses were received.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026