IHC issues notices on Imaan Mazari, Hadi Chattha appeals

ISLAMABAD  –  The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday issued notices on appeals filed by human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, challenging an anti-terrorism court (ATC) order rejecting their petitions against the framing of charges and the inclusion of terrorism-related provisions in a security breach case. A division bench comprising Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas and Justice Shahrukh Arjumand heard the appeals. Riasat Ali Azad, Zainab Janjua and other lawyers appeared before the court. At the outset, Justice Minhas asked whether the accused had received copies of the relevant documents. Counsel Riasat Ali Azad replied in the negative, saying he wanted to examine the manner in which the charges had been framed.

Rawalpindi’s 21 MGD water shortfall puts dam projects in focus

The counsel argued that the ATC had passed the impugned order without the requisite authority. 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 where the challan was submitted was 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 because they were not physically present in the courtroom.

He maintained that the proceedings could not lawfully proceed without compliance with the requirements for framing charges 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 argued that any defect in its framing would undermine the legality of 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.

HSA promotes early detection at breast cancer awareness session

The judge also asked whose signatures appeared on the charge document. Azad said the document bore his signature but not those of the accused, which he argued 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 their attendance had been recorded when the charges were framed. The counsel insisted that the accused had not been present when he signed the documents and requested the court to summon the video recording of the proceedings. He also said copies of the documents had not been delivered to the accused in jail and that an affidavit had been submitted in this regard. 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 sought both the case record and the video recording of the proceedings.

IHRA trains assessors for healthcare facility licensing

The judge subsequently asked where the law 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 urged the high court to halt the trial.

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

The judge said the court would issue an order and inform the parties accordingly. He added that notices had been issued and the court would decide how to proceed after receiving the responses.

ICT police continue interviews for phase-I recruitment

NIPCO House, 4 – Shaharah e Fatima Jinnah,

Tel: +92 42 36367580    |     Fax : +92 42 36367005