Lawyer and human rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, on Monday moved the Supreme Court against an order by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) concerning their trial court proceedings in the security breach case. The couple filed the appeal in the Supreme Court through Advocate Faisal Siddiqui, seeking to set aside the IHC's October 19 order, in which the high court turned down their plea for interim relief.
The case, registered at Aabpara Police Station, stems from allegations that the lawyer couple posed a security risk by interfering in state affairs during the visit of an international cricket team in October 2024. An anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Islamabad indicted Mazari and Chattha in the case earlier this month despite the accused objecting that they had not yet received copies of the case documents.
In their plea before the Supreme Court, the couple maintained that statements of two prosecution witnesses had been recorded without giving the defence an opportunity to cross-examine them. They also said the high court had declined interim relief against the trial in its October 19 order.
The petitioners asked the Supreme Court to set aside the October 19 order and restrain the trial court from proceeding further. Meanwhile, an IHC bench comprising Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas and Justice Shahrukh Arjumand heard the couple's challenge to the jail trial and the appointment of a state counsel.
Advocates Riasat Ali Azad and Zainab Janjua appeared on behalf of Mazari and Chattha. During the hearing, the petitioners' counsel questioned the authority under which the jail trial had been initiated.
They argued that the accused should have been heard before a decision was made to conduct proceedings inside a jail. The lawyers also questioned the process through which the proposal for a jail trial had been initiated.
They said the summary originated from Islamabad's senior superintendent of police and received final approval from the chief commissioner, arguing that the authority to initiate such a process rested with the federal government. Justice Minhas raised questions about the concept of an open court and asked who held the authority to decide where an accused person would be tried.
Advocate Azad argued that journalists and members of the public could not attend proceedings conducted inside a jail. He told the court that an application had been filed before the trial judge, arguing that no judicial order had been passed on the matter.
According to the counsel, the trial judge had directed them to challenge the issue before the high court. Lawyer Zainab Janjua said that she had initially appeared in the matter but later withdrew her vakalatnama, explaining that travelling to Adiala jail daily while maintaining her legal practice was not feasible.
Advocate Azad argued that the offences were bailable and questioned the inclusion of a terrorism charge. They asked the court to grant relief and restrain the trial court from issuing a final verdict.
Justice Minhas questioned why the petitioners were seeking such relief, observing that they could also be acquitted. After hearing the defence counsels' argument, the court adjourned the hearing, saying it would look into the matter.