The Supreme Court has fixed for hearing the petitions filed by lawyer and activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, seeking suspension of their sentences.

A three-member bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and comprising Justice Mussarat Hilali and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, will hear the matter on July 6.

According to the petition, despite the defence counsel’s repeated request for suspension of the trial court’s judgment, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) only issued notices on the suspension applications on February 19 and did not suspend the couple’s 17-year sentences awarded over controversial social media posts.

Earlier, on May 12, a three-member Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Shahid Waheed had directed the IHC to decide the applications “preferably within two weeks” while hearing petitions filed by the couple. The matter, however, remains pending before the apex court.

Despite the SC directions, the IHC has yet to decide the applications. The matter is now before a differently constituted SC bench.

It remains unclear whether the case was assigned to the new bench by the three-member committee constituted under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act.

The IHC last heard the matter on June 1, when the prosecution sought time to prepare its arguments. The hearing was adjourned until June 4. However, the cause list for June 4 was cancelled on June 2, and the case has not been relisted since then.

Subsequently, Faisal Siddiqi, counsel for Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha, approached the SC seeking an early hearing of the matter. Interestingly, the petitions have now been listed before another SC bench.

Legal observers say the bench may adopt one of three courses: refer the matter back to the IHC with directions for its early disposal, withdraw the apex court’s May 12 order, or decide the sentence suspension applications itself.

Meanwhile, the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) has challenged the SC’s earlier order directing the IHC to decide the couple’s suspension applications within a specified timeframe.

In a concise statement submitted before the court in the same case, the NCCIA argued that the SC has a consistent and long-standing practice of not interfering in matters pending before high courts at the initial or interlocutory stage, except in extraordinary or highly exceptional circumstances.