Previously, a two-judge bench had upheld the trial court’s decision to terminate the founder’s right to defend due to his absence. Despite the court recognizing his injuries on two occasions, the trial court had still terminated his right to defend, and witness statements were being recorded in his absence. Justice Ayesha Malik questioned how the trial court could deny the right to defense after acknowledging the founder’s injuries. She clarified that the Supreme Court was issuing notices to the opposing party while reviewing the legality of the trial court’s actions. The Supreme Court’s intervention ensures that the founder’s right to defense is safeguarded while proceedings are temporarily stayed.

Source: The Patriot February 20, 2026 12:29 UTC