Jailed Pakistani human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha on Monday, 26 October 2025, moved the Pakistani Supreme Court challenging the Islamabad High Court's (IHC) refusal to stay their trial before an anti-terrorism court. The couple alleged that the proceedings were designed to block their release, according to local media reports.

The Petitions Filed

According to leading Pakistani daily Dawn, Mazari and Chattha filed separate but near-identical petitions through senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui. The petitions challenge the IHC's 19 October order in a case linked to the alleged disruption of the security route of a foreign cricket team and incitement to public unrest. The couple, accused of removing barriers from the route, were indicted on 7 October.

The petitions alleged that the trial amounted to persecution aimed at undermining the Supreme Court's earlier order suspending the couple's 17-year sentences in a controversial social media post case. They further contended that the present case had 'suddenly resurfaced' to keep them behind bars through what they described as a frivolous prosecution.

Allegations of Procedural Violations

The couple also accused the trial court of acting with 'unprecedented haste', recording the testimony of six prosecution witnesses on 10 October and 14 October, and approving the prosecution's request to shift proceedings to Adiala jail. Mazari's petition stated that the IHC had 'erroneously refused to exercise its discretion to grant ad interim relief to stay the criminal trial, despite multiple factual and legal reasons warranting such relief and repeated requests.'

The petitions further argued that recording evidence in the couple's absence violated the Code of Criminal Procedure and their right to a fair trial, emphasising that their walkout — and that of their lawyers — was a protest, not a waiver of their right to be present.

IHC Hearing on Jail Trial

Separately, a division bench of the IHC heard the couple's plea against their trial being conducted inside Adiala jail and against the appointment of a state counsel. Their lawyer, Riasat Ali Azad, told the bench that the accused were being produced before what he termed a 'jail court', where access was restricted and journalists and members of the public were barred entry.

Azad alleged that when he sought a single adjournment, a state counsel was appointed and prosecution witnesses were cross-examined in his absence. He also contended that the First Information Report (FIR) in the case had been withheld for two years, and that the couple was arrested under it immediately after securing bail from the Supreme Court. He argued that although the original charges were bailable, a terrorism-related charge was subsequently added.

Court's Response and What Comes Next

Azad urged the court to restrain the trial court from announcing a final verdict until the petition was decided. Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, noting that the accused could also be acquitted, said the court would examine the matter. The Supreme Court is yet to formally admit the petitions, and the next hearing date is expected to be set shortly. The case is being closely watched by Pakistani civil society and press freedom advocates as a test of judicial independence.