IHC removes objections to appeals against Imran Khan, Bushra Bibi’s convictions

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has issued a detailed written order explaining its decision to remove the registrar office’s objections to the appeals filed by Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, against their convictions.

The order, issued in connection with the March 12 hearing before Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro, also accepted the applications seeking condonation of any delay in filing the appeals, holding that the reasons presented by the appellants’ counsel were justified.

The court directed the registrar office to remove its objections, assign diary numbers to the appeals and process them for hearing.

According to the written order, the appellants’ lawyer argued that the appeals had been filed within the statutory 30-day period following the trial court’s December 20, 2025 judgment, under which both Khan and Bushra Bibi were sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment each along with fines. The appeals were filed on December 29, 2025.

The lawyer further argued that there was no legal requirement to submit a fresh power of attorney (vakalatnama) in the High Court for counsel who had already represented the accused during the trial. However, the registrar office had objected to the appeals on the grounds that a new vakalatnama had not been filed.

The court noted the lawyer’s submission that repeated attempts were made to obtain the appellants’ signatures on a fresh vakalatnama, but the jail superintendent did not cooperate, preventing the document from being signed.

The order also recorded the lawyer’s argument that the remaining objections raised by the registrar office were minor in nature and did not justify returning the appeals.

According to the order, the lawyer contended that once an appeal is filed, the registrar office is required to place it before the court with its objections rather than reject or return it. Whether those objections are valid is a matter to be decided by the court on the judicial side.

The lawyer further argued that an appeal is a continuation of the trial process and a statutory right of the appellant, involving a fresh assessment of the evidence. Therefore, an appellant cannot be deprived of that right on purely technical grounds, and appeals should be decided on their merits after hearing both parties and examining the evidence.

The IHC had removed the registrar office’s objections during the March 12 hearing, with the detailed written order explaining the reasons for that decision now released.