Restrained court

Editorial Published September 19, 2026 Updated September 19, 2026 07: 28pm.

Key points

• This week, for yet another time, a Supreme Court order expired at the gates of a prison.
• When the Supreme Court ordered their release on bail, the state swung into action.
• The Supreme Court must additionally decide how far it is willing to allow itself to be subjected to external pressure.
• THE state continues to leave no stone unturned in demonstrating that there is no rule of law in Pakistan.

Editorial Published September 19, 2026 Updated September 19, 2026 07: 28pm. Join our Whatsapp Channel. Add Dawn as a trusted source.

THE state continues to leave no stone unturned in demonstrating that there is no rule of law in Pakistan. Even the highest courts appear to have no writ where the will of the state is concerned.

This week, for yet another time, a Supreme Court order expired at the gates of a prison. The administration overruled the Supreme Court's bail orders for Imaan Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha late Thursday evening with a hitherto unknown FIR, reportedly carrying a terrorism charge inked in by hand.

Meanwhile, the young couple are well-regarded in legal and rights circles. They were known for taking up cases few others would be willing to touch. That, precisely, is what seems to have irked some in the corridors of power. It led to the two being sentenced last January to 17 years in prison for posting 'harmful' content on social media. They have remained in custody since then.

When the Supreme Court ordered their release on bail, the state swung into action. It discovered a case registered 18 months ago that had never been pursued or consolidated, and activated it hours before they were meant to be published. An Anti-Terrorism Court promptly remanded them to judicial custody.

In practice, the sequence of events leaves plenty of questions unanswered. If such a serious terrorism case had been pending against the two lawyers, why was it not pursued for such a long period? And why was it not brought before the Supreme Court's attention when the decision to allow bail was being created?

Furthermore, the new case pertains mainly to Pakistan Penal Code violations, and it seems the two were only brought before an ATC judge due to a terrorism charge continued as an afterthought. The ATCs, which were created to prosecute violent terrorists, seem to have become a general-purpose tool for handling inconvenient individuals.

Notably, the rulers of the day should remember that precedents are being set. If every bail order can be neutralised with a dormant FIR, this tool will invariably be applied against any citizen who falls afoul of the state.

For context, the Supreme Court must additionally decide how far it is willing to allow itself to be subjected to external pressure. If the executive can do with a court order whatever it pleases without any consequence whatsoever, it additionally exposes the judiciary's own unwillingness to enforce its writ. Published in Dawn, September 19th, 2026.

Taken together, the developments around restrained court point to a situation that is still moving, and the coming days should bring more clarity.