The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday disposed of appeals challenging the trial in the barriers removal case involving Human rights lawyers Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha, declaring the matter infructuous as the trial had already been completed. On Friday, Imaan and Hadi filed appeals against their convictions in the case in the Islamabad High Court (IHC), along with separate applications seeking suspension of their sentences and release on bail pending the outcome of the appeals. A three-member bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar heard the appeals. During the hearing, the court observed that the matter was pending before the IHC and that the proceedings before the SC had become infructuous. The apex court said the high court would determine the maintainability of the petitions. Advocate Faisal Siddiqui informed the bench that the anti-terrorism court (ATC) had completed the entire trial in jail within 22 days. “The trial has already been completed, and the case has now become infructuous,” Justice Mazhar observed. Siddiqui complained that petitioners had to approach the SC to get their cases fixed for hearing before the high court. “Even if you hang us, at least hear the case,” he argued. The lawyer said they had approached the high court against the trial court's framing of charges and alleged failure to fulfil legal requirements during the trial. He said the high court had not stayed the trial, prompting them to approach the SC. He further complained that the SC had also failed to fix the case for hearing in time. Read: Imaan Mazari, Hadi Chattha appeal 10-year sentences in IHC Responding to his remarks, Justice Mazhar said it was not the court's responsibility to decide which cases should or should not be fixed for hearing. “We cannot say that this case should be fixed for hearing, nor can we say that it should not be fixed,” the judge observed. Siddiqui urged the court to ensure that litigants retained at least the right to have their cases decided. “Let people retain at least the right to have their cases decided,” he said. The SC subsequently disposed of the appeals as infructuous, leaving the question of the petitions' maintainability to the IHC.  On October 29, an ATC sentenced Imaan and Hadi to 10 years in prison each in a case involving the removal of security barriers. The court convicted them under Section 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), sentencing them to one year's simple imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs50,000 each. They were also convicted under Section 353 of the PPC and sentenced to two years' simple imprisonment, with a fine of Rs50,000 each. Both were further convicted under Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997, as defined under Section 6(2)(m), and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs100,000 each. The two lawyers were arrested by the capital police in October 2024 on terrorism charges following a confrontation with traffic police, who had erected barricades to secure the movement of the visiting English cricket team. They were accused of interfering with government protocol, leading to their detention under various provisions of the ATA and PPC. On October 26, Imaan and Hadi approached the SC against an IHC decision concerning their request to halt proceedings in the anti-terrorism case. They argued that unless the trial was immediately stayed, their pending application before the high court would become ineffective. Also Read: Islamabad ATC grants bail to Imaan Mazari, Hadi Ali Chattha in road blockade, police clash case They contended that the trial court had initiated proceedings in haste without allowing them adequate time and had recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses in a single day. A day later, the ATC reserved its verdict after the conclusion of the trial at Rawalpindi's Adiala Jail. Both Imaan and Hadi recorded their statements, while the state counsel completed final arguments. The ATC had framed charges against them on October 7 and subsequently recorded statements from all seven prosecution witnesses. The trial was later shifted to Adiala Jail amid disputes over the accused's production in court and defence lawyers' access to their clients. The two lawyers had also approached the IHC last month, seeking suspension of the trial over alleged procedural violations during the framing of charges. They maintained that they had not been physically present when the charges were framed and had not received copies of the relevant documents. The IHC had heard their pleas and said it would issue an order after hearing the respondents. It dismissed their request for an interim order in petitions seeking the removal of anti-terrorism provisions from the case. However, it issued notices to the relevant parties on their separate plea seeking suspension of the trial proceedings.