IHC Questions Fairness as Imran Khan’s X Account Case Proceeds Without Lawyer Access

The Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) recent query over how proceedings related to former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s X (formerly Twitter) account can continue without granting him access to legal counsel has reignited a national debate on due process, digital rights, and the rule of law in Pakistan. The case, centered on the alleged misuse of a social media account attributed to Imran Khan, goes beyond one individual and touches the core of constitutional guarantees in the digital age.

A Case at the Intersection of Law and Digital Expression

At the heart of the matter is the question of fairness. The IHC reportedly asked how a case involving serious legal and constitutional implications can move forward when the accused party is unable to consult or be represented by a lawyer of his choice. This concern is particularly significant because the case involves online speech—an area where intent, authorship, and digital evidence require careful legal scrutiny.

Imran Khan’s X account, which has been a primary channel for political messaging and mobilization, has previously been at the center of controversy. Authorities have raised concerns about posts allegedly inciting unrest or spreading misinformation. However, critics argue that any legal process examining such claims must strictly adhere to constitutional protections, especially the right to legal representation.

The Constitutional Right to Counsel

Pakistan’s Constitution clearly guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process. Legal experts emphasize that access to a lawyer is not a privilege but a fundamental right. The IHC’s query reflects a broader judicial concern: without legal counsel, how can an accused person effectively defend themselves, challenge evidence, or ensure that proceedings remain impartial?

This issue becomes even more complex when the accused is a former prime minister and a major political figure. Any perception of procedural unfairness risks undermining public confidence in the judiciary and the legal system as a whole. The court’s remarks suggest an awareness of these sensitivities and a willingness to scrutinize whether established legal norms are being followed.

Digital Evidence and Legal Complexity

Cases involving social media accounts are inherently complex. Determining who controls an account, who authored specific posts, and whether content violates the law requires technical expertise and robust legal argumentation. Without access to a lawyer, an accused individual is effectively denied the ability to question digital evidence, request forensic verification, or present alternative explanations.

The IHC’s concern highlights a critical reality of modern law: digital expression cannot be adjudicated with shortcuts. As social media increasingly shapes political discourse, courts must balance state interests—such as public order and national security—with individual rights to free expression and fair legal treatment.

Political Context and Public Perception

The timing and nature of the case have fueled political debate. Supporters of Imran Khan view the proceedings as part of a broader pattern of political pressure, while critics argue that no individual should be above the law. Regardless of political affiliation, many legal analysts agree that denying lawyer access sets a troubling precedent.

Public perception matters deeply in such high-profile cases. If the legal process is seen as opaque or restrictive, it risks being interpreted as politically motivated rather than justice-driven. The IHC’s questioning can therefore be seen as an attempt to reaffirm judicial independence and ensure that legal standards are not compromised.

Implications for Freedom of Expression

Beyond Imran Khan, the case has wider implications for journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens who use social media platforms to express opinions. If cases related to online speech proceed without full legal safeguards, it could create a chilling effect on free expression. People may fear that their digital voices could be scrutinized or penalized without adequate legal recourse.

The IHC’s stance signals that courts recognize these broader stakes. Ensuring lawyer access is not just about one defendant; it is about protecting the integrity of legal processes in an era where tweets, posts, and videos can have legal consequences.

What Comes Next?

While the IHC has raised critical questions, the path forward will depend on how authorities respond. Granting access to legal counsel would align the proceedings with constitutional requirements and international legal norms. Failure to do so could invite further judicial intervention and intensify public scrutiny.

Ultimately, this case may become a landmark moment in Pakistan’s legal handling of digital speech and political expression. It underscores the need for clear legal frameworks that respect rights while addressing legitimate concerns about online conduct.

Conclusion

The Islamabad High Court’s query—asking how Imran Khan’s X account case can proceed without lawyer access—is more than a procedural concern. It is a reminder that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. In a digital era where words travel faster than ever, safeguarding due process and legal representation remains essential to preserving democracy, constitutionalism, and public trust.