Anti-Terrorism Court Drops Contempt Case Against Adiala Jail Officials After Imaan and Hadi Sign Powers of Attorney

Key points:

• Islamabad’s anti‑terrorism court dismissed contempt charges against Adiala jail officials after petitioners Imaan and Hadi executed powers of attorney.
• The court described the signing of the powers of attorney as the initial procedural step toward delivering justice for the detainees.
• Judge Supra highlighted that the newly‑adopted standard operating procedures for powers of attorney will streamline future litigation and cut down on bureaucratic delays.
• The decision underscores the judiciary’s push for jail administrators to adhere strictly to legal obligations while protecting the rights of inmates.

The anti‑terrorism court (ATC) in Islamabad formally withdrew the contempt case it had lodged against senior officials of the Adiala detention facility. The withdrawal came after the two petitioners, identified as Imaan and Hadi, were permitted by jail authorities to sign powers of attorney authorising their legal representatives to act on their behalf. By allowing the documents to be executed, the prison administration satisfied a key procedural requirement that had been a point of contention in the contempt proceedings.

In its ruling, the presiding judge, Justice Supra, emphasized that the act of signing the powers of attorney represents more than a mere formality; it signals the commencement of a structured legal process aimed at securing the petitioners’ rights. The judge also noted that the court’s recent introduction of standardized operating procedures (SOPs) for handling powers of attorney will make it easier for future petitioners to navigate the justice system, reducing unnecessary delays that often plague cases involving detainees.

Legal experts view the ATC’s decision as a positive step toward greater accountability within Pakistan’s correctional institutions. By insisting on clear, documented authorizations, the judiciary is sending a message that jail officials must cooperate fully with legal processes and respect the procedural safeguards afforded to those in custody. This development could have broader implications for other prisons across the country, where similar procedural bottlenecks have historically hampered timely access to justice.

For the families of Imaan, Hadi and other inmates awaiting resolution of their cases, the court’s move offers a measure of relief. It signals that the legal system is actively addressing procedural shortcomings and is willing to adapt its mechanisms—through SOPs and clearer guidelines—to ensure that detainees’ rights are not sidelined by administrative inertia.