ISLAMABAD, 19 MAY (DNA) —     The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday raised objections over the non-submission of certified copies of Supreme Court orders during the hearing of miscellaneous petitions seeking early hearing of appeals filed by convicted human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posts case.

Justice Muhammad Azam Khan heard the petitions seeking fixation of the sentence suspension petitions at an early date in light of directions issued earlier by the SC directing the IHC to decide the plea within a fortnight.

Senior lawyer Faisal Siddiqi appeared before the court on behalf of the couple on Tuesday. Former president of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) Riasat Ali Azad, District Bar President Chaudhry Naeem Gujjar, former federal minister and Imaan’s mother Shireen Mazari and other lawyers were also present in the courtroom during the proceedings.

At the outset of the hearing, Siddiqi informed the court that miscellaneous petitions had been filed for the early hearing of the sentence suspension pleas. He submitted that the SC had already directed the IHC to decide the matter within two weeks.

Justice Khan, however, observed that the court had not yet received a certified copy of the SC order. “You should read the SC order. I do not have the order before me,” the judge remarked. Siddiqi responded that a copy of the apex court’s order had been attached to the miscellaneous petitions.

 The judge then pointed out that the SC order specifically mentioned that the two-week period would commence after receipt of the certified copy. “We have not received the certified order yet. Do you have one?” Justice Khan asked. The counsel replied in the affirmative and offered to hand over the copy during the hearing. However, the judge declined to accept it directly and directed the lawyer to place it on record through the court office.

“This is not the proper way to submit an order. You should file it through the regular offie,” the judge observed. Siddiqi urged the court to accept the copy, saying the substance of the order was already before the court. However, Justice Khan reiterated that judicial orders could not be taken on record informally and must be filed in accordance with procedural requirements.

“I cannot take a copy like this. You should file a miscellaneous application,” the judge remarked. During the exchange, Siddiqi questioned why the court was reluctant to receive the copy of the SC order, maintaining that the matter involved the implementation of directions already issued by the apex court.

Justice Khan then asked why a certified copy had not been filed along with the miscellaneous petitions in the first place. The counsel explained that when the petitions were moved, the certified copy had not yet been issued by the SC registry. He added that the petitions had initially been filed based on the order available on the SC’s official website.

The judge observed that such practice was procedurally improper and directed the counsel to formally place the certified copy on record through a separate miscellaneous application.Siddiqi subsequently assured the court that the required application would be filed the same day. Following the exchange, the court adjourned further proceedings.

During the SC hearing on May 12, Siddiqi had complained that the IHC had kept his clients’ pleas for the suspension of their sentences pending despite the passage of two months.— DNA