The Supreme Court on Wednesday summoned Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan after no government representative initially appeared during the hearing of the case concerning the hospital transfer of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder and former prime minister Imran Khan.

Barrister Ali Zafar represented Mishal Yousafzai before the court, and later Additional Attorney General Rana Asad also appeared. During the proceedings, Rana Asad informed the bench that the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) had assumed jurisdiction over the case from the Supreme Court the previous day. He stated that an official order to this effect had been issued.

Justice Shahid Waheed instructed the additional attorney general to read out the FCC’s order. After it was read, Justice Waheed inquired whether the attorney general was present in his office. Upon confirmation, the court directed that Mansoor Usman Awan be called to appear. Subsequently, the Supreme Court summoned the attorney general again before adjourning the hearing for the second time.

In a significant development, the FCC’s decision to take over the record of Khan’s hospital transfer case from the Supreme Court raised questions about jurisdiction ahead of the apex court’s scheduled hearing of a contempt petition concerning the alleged non-compliance with its August 18 order.

The FCC’s three-member bench, led by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, issued the directive while hearing petitions filed by three prisoners from Adiala jail seeking permission for treatment at private hospitals. The court ordered its registrar to collect the case record of Imran Khan as well as records of similar cases pending before the Supreme Court and various high courts.

This move followed arguments by Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, who cited Article 175E(5) of the Constitution, asserting the FCC’s authority to call for case records from any court if a substantial constitutional question is involved.

Justice Ali Baqar Najafi questioned whether the government had previously raised this jurisdictional objection before the Supreme Court. Awan responded that an additional attorney general had done so, but the Supreme Court had issued its August 18 order without notifying the government. Justice Najafi also queried whether the Supreme Court should have first determined the maintainability of the petition.

Justice Aamer Farooq observed that the matter before the Supreme Court was criminal in nature and that the August 18 order was interim. Justice Najafi pointed out that the central issue was whether cases involving constitutional interpretation and fundamental rights now fall under the FCC’s jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court’s August 18 order mandated that Imran Khan be transferred from Adiala jail to Shifa International Hospital for medical examination and treatment, with his sister, Dr. Uzma Khan, and physician Dr. Faisal Sultan present. However, Khan was instead taken to Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) for examination before being returned to Adiala jail.

Following this, Dr. Uzma Khan filed a contempt petition alleging the government’s failure to implement the Supreme Court’s directive. The apex court scheduled the hearing of this petition for September 16.

The FCC’s intervention has broader implications in light of the 27th Constitutional Amendment, which established the FCC and redefined the distribution of constitutional jurisdiction. In prior rulings, the FCC has held that its decisions are binding on all courts, including the Supreme Court, whereas the Supreme Court’s judgments under Article 189 do not bind the FCC.

The FCC case originated from petitions by three Adiala prisoners who sought access to private hospitals. The Islamabad High Court had rejected their pleas, ruling that prisoners do not have a legal or fundamental right to treatment at private hospitals of their choice. However, transfer to a private facility could be permitted if recommended by a medical board and if the required treatment is unavailable at a government hospital.