Imran’s hospital transfer: SC turns down plea seeking early hearing of contempt case

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a request by Dr Uzma Khan, sister of incarcerated Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, for an early hearing of her contempt petition over alleged non-compliance with the court’s earlier order directing the former prime minister’s transfer to Shifa International Hospital.

The contempt petition is already scheduled to be heard on September 16 by a three-member bench comprising Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim.

The Supreme Court office, while turning down Uzma Khan’s second request for an early hearing, cited the court’s case-fixation policy, under which matters are taken up according to their turn.

The office said that 94 criminal original petitions of the same category were already pending before the Supreme Court and that the fixation policy required such cases to be listed in their turn.

Uzma had sought an urgent hearing, arguing that the petition concerned Imran Khan’s health, life, dignity and physical well-being and was aimed at securing implementation of the Supreme Court’s August 18 order.

She had also requested that the hearing be held during the current or following week, saying the delay until September 16 could not be justified by the fixation policy.

Dispute over implementation of SC order

The contempt petition stems from the Supreme Court’s August 18 order directing that Imran Khan be transferred to Shifa International Hospital within two days for a medical examination.

Instead, the PTI founder was taken to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) for a check-up before being returned to prison.

Information Minister Attaullah Tarar had attributed the change in arrangements to security concerns allegedly created by PTI workers on the route to and outside the hospital.

The PTI rejected the government’s explanation and accused the authorities of deliberately failing to comply with the Supreme Court’s directive.

The controversy prompted Uzma Khan to approach the Supreme Court, seeking contempt proceedings against government officials responsible for implementing the order.

The court’s three-member bench is also scheduled to resume hearing other pending matters relating to Imran’s health and meetings with his family on September 16.

IHC rejects pleas by three Adiala prisoners for private hospital treatment

Meanwhile, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has rejected petitions filed by three prisoners seeking treatment at private hospitals, ruling that transfer to a private facility cannot be treated as a fundamental right without a medical board recommending that adequate treatment is unavailable at a prison or government hospital.

IHC Judge Justice Muhammad Asif issued written verdicts in the cases, including a petition filed by Adiala jail prisoner Owais Altaf, who had sought permission to be shifted to a private hospital for medical treatment.

The prisoners had also sought permission to communicate by telephone with family members living abroad.

During the proceedings, reference was made to the Supreme Court’s August 18 order directing the transfer of PTI founder Imran Khan to Shifa International Hospital for a medical examination.

The IHC observed that there was no doubt that judgments of the Supreme Court were binding on all high courts. However, it noted that the August 18 directions regarding Imran Khan were interim in nature and that the case cited before the court was still pending before the Supreme Court.

Therefore, the interim order could not be treated as a final determination of prisoners’ entitlement to treatment at private hospitals, the court ruled.

Medical board required for private treatment

In its ruling on Owais Altaf’s petition, the IHC said a prisoner could not claim transfer to a private hospital as a fundamental right unless a medical board determined that the required treatment was unavailable at the jail hospital or a government hospital.

The court observed that where adequate medical facilities were not available at government hospitals in Islamabad, the authorities could constitute a medical board to assess the prisoner’s condition and treatment requirements.

If the medical board recommended treatment at a private hospital, the prisoner could then be provided treatment there, subject to the applicable rules.

The court directed the authorities to ensure that prisoners were provided necessary medical facilities in accordance with the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978.

Phone calls to families abroad

In a separate case involving prisoner Muhammad Ismail, the IHC rejected his request for telephone communication with his family abroad.

Justice Muhammad Asif held that the petitioner had failed to establish that an August 2 office order restricting such communication was unlawful or that it violated his fundamental rights.

The court, however, observed that if Pakistani law permits prisoners to communicate with their families through WhatsApp, video calls or other means, the relevant authorities may consider such requests.

Any such facility would remain subject to prison discipline, security requirements and the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978.

The rulings clarify that while prisoners are entitled to necessary medical care and lawful communication facilities, access to private hospitals or electronic communication with relatives is not an unconditional or automatic right and remains subject to the applicable legal and regulatory framework.