ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has fixed June 1 for hearing the sentence suspension applications filed by human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the social media posts case.

As per a one-page written order issued by IHC’s Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, following last week’s hearing, a certified copy of the Supreme Court’s May 12 order had been submitted.

It should be noted that the SC had directed the IHC on May 12 to decide within two weeks on Imaan and Hadi’s pleas seeking the suspension of their sentence.

On May 20, the IHC had issued notices to officials of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on applications requesting an expedited hearing of the sentence suspension petitions.

Earlier this month, the judge had raised objections over the non-submission of certified copies of the SC order and directed the defence counsel to submit the certified order through the court office in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Following the submission of the certified copy, the case was fixed for June 1, while the IHC’s registrar office also issued the cause list for next week’s hearing.

The case and appeals

Imaan and Hadi have been in jail since their arrest in January in a case registered against the two for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. While the arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians, and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years in prison in the social media posts case just a day after the development.

The controversy at the centre of the case stems from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by the NCCIA Islamabad assistant director (investigating officer) before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre, FIA, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Peca).

The complaint accused Imaan of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations”, while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts.

In January, the sessions court sentenced the duo to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 10 (cyber terrorism), five years’ imprisonment under Section 9 (glorification of an offence) and two years’ imprisonment under Section 26-A (false and fake information) of Peca.

In December 2025, the couple challenged the IHC’s decision refusing interim relief in the case before the SC. The appeal was filed against a December 1 IHC order that denied ad-interim relief of staying the trial without a just legal cause.

On May 11, their counsel submitted additional documents to the SC in relevance to the appeal, consisting of the charge sheets of different dates against the petitioners, their statements before the trial court and the orders issued by the court.

The petitioners pleaded before the SC to allow bringing these documents on record in the interest of justice since they were “essential and relevant for adjudication of the present case”.

They explained that the said documents were not available at the time of filing the appeal, since the paper books were not prepared by the office of the IHC; the trial record was obtained after filing the appeals.

On April 30, the duo had moved another appeal in the SC, seeking an early hearing of their pleas against conviction and challenging the Feb 19 IHC order.

Through that order, the IHC had admitted the appeal against the trial court’s verdict. Although it had also issued notices to the respondents on the sentence suspension pleas, it had not suspended the sentence.

The petition contended that the appeals be accepted and the sentence handed to the petitioners be suspended till the disposal of the criminal appeal pending before the IHC.