The Islamabad chief commissioner has formally contested the Supreme Court’s ruling that permitted the transfer of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan to a private medical facility. The challenge asserts that the court’s decision was founded on clear legal mistakes.
On August 18, the Supreme Court directed that the former prime minister be moved from Adiala jail to Shifa International Hospital, fulfilling a long-standing demand from his party and family amid concerns over his health. Imran Khan, aged 73 and a former cricketer turned politician, has been detained in Rawalpindi since August 2023 after convictions in multiple cases which he and PTI claim are politically motivated following his removal from office in 2022.
Meanwhile, citing security issues, authorities transferred Imran to the government-run Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (Pims) under strict security late Thursday, just before the expiry of the court’s 48-hour deadline.
The review petition against the Supreme Court’s order argues that transferring a prisoner to a private hospital contravenes the Pakistan Prison Rules of 1978. It highlights that the prison regulations only allow treatment within jail facilities or civil and district headquarters hospitals. The plea further warns that such a transfer could heighten security risks and increase the chance of external interference.
Additionally, the petition states that a prisoner’s preference for treatment by a private doctor contradicts prison regulations, emphasizing that government medical professionals are highly qualified, internationally recognized experts in their fields.
The chief commissioner also criticized the Supreme Court for issuing its verdict without including him as a party or providing prior notice, claiming this violated Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees fair hearing.
The petition points out that the medical board’s report did not indicate that Imran’s health was in a critical state. It argues that the court should not have made a direct ruling based solely on this report without consulting technical medical experts.
Furthermore, the plea maintains that Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to jail administration matters, and that criminal courts lack authority to exercise powers beyond those specified in the Code.
It also underscores that prisoners’ rights to movement and communication are legally restricted during incarceration, noting that permitting two foreign telephone calls per week would breach Rule 265 of the Prison Rules.
In a significant development, the review plea asserts that granting the final relief as interim relief contradicts established legal principles. It warns that providing special privileges to one prisoner undermines the constitutional guarantee of equal rights under Article 25 and could encourage similar demands from other inmates.
