The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday reserved its judgment regarding petitions that sought to declare the alleged solitary confinement of former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, unlawful. The court heard comprehensive arguments from both parties before deciding to withhold the verdict.
Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro, presiding over the case, announced that a written order would be issued at a later date. During the proceedings, the superintendent of Adiala Jail and the Islamabad Advocate General submitted a compliance report in response to the court’s June 30 directive.
The Advocate General informed the court that neither Imran Khan nor Bushra Bibi had been placed in solitary confinement by any judicial or authorized entity. He maintained that Khan was receiving enhanced facilities within the prison and was confined to his cell only for a few hours at night due to security protocols, which did not legally constitute solitary confinement.
Furthermore, the Advocate General noted that the Supreme Court had already expressed satisfaction with the conditions provided to Khan, emphasizing that his accommodations exceeded those granted to inmates entitled to B-Class facilities. The Adiala jail superintendent also refuted the solitary confinement claims, stating that a convicted prison orderly remained with Khan at all times.
He clarified that, by legal definition, solitary confinement requires complete isolation inside a cell for 24 hours daily, a condition not met in this case. The hearing additionally addressed Khan’s health concerns, with the Advocate General arguing that matters related to his eye treatment fell outside the scope of the current petitions.
Justice Soomro remarked that it would have been preferable if the medical board’s report had been formally submitted to the court. He also instructed both parties to provide any additional legal precedents or relevant case law in writing should they wish the court to consider them before delivering its decision. The judge further observed that the dispute might have been resolved through an agreed standard operating procedure between the parties.
Responding to the court’s comments, the Adiala jail superintendent stated that Khan’s eyesight issue had been addressed, referencing a report by the executive director of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) that had been made public.
Following the arguments, the court reserved its judgment, promising a detailed written order in due course. The petitions were filed by Aleema Khan on behalf of Imran Khan and by Mubashra Maneka, daughter of Bushra Bibi.
Aleema Khan’s petition claimed that Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi were subjected to unlawful solitary confinement and denied regular visits from family members and lawyers. Earlier, the Adiala jail superintendent had submitted a detailed report denying these allegations, stating that Khan had access to natural light, fresh air, exercise, and daily movement within the prison.
The superintendent urged the court to dismiss Aleema Khan’s petition as speculative and unfounded. The IHC had previously sought a detailed report from jail authorities after noting that allegations of unlawful solitary confinement required thorough examination before dismissal.
The court had requested clarification on whether Khan and Bushra Bibi had been held in isolation, under what legal authority, and for what duration, before determining the petitions’ validity.
The petition filed by Aleema Khan contended that Imran Khan had been isolated for up to 22 hours daily over several months without any court order authorizing solitary confinement. It also alleged repeated denial of meetings with family members and PTI leaders, contrary to earlier court rulings.
Imran Khan, aged 74, has been in custody since August 5, 2023, following his initial conviction in the Toshakhana case. While some convictions have been suspended or overturned, he remains imprisoned after a conviction in the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust corruption case, which Khan and the PTI describe as politically motivated. The government denies these claims, asserting that legal proceedings are not being used to target the opposition.
