Islamabad chief commissioner again moves SC against ‘discriminatory’ order to shift Imran to private hospital

AI Summary

The Islamabad chief commissioner filed a petition with Pakistan's Supreme Court challenging the medical transfer order of former Prime Minister Imran Khan to a private hospital, arguing discrimination against other convicts. The case highlights tensions over perceived preferential treatment amid Khan's deteriorating health and ongoing legal battles.

ISLAMABAD: The controversy surrounding the transfer of incarcerated PTI founder Imran Khan to a private hospital in Islamabad showed no signs of subsiding on Friday, as the Islamabad chief commissioner again approached the Supreme Court (SC), arguing that the move appeared discriminatory. The petition argued that the applicant had a direct, substantial and legally protected interest in the matter and that the Aug 18 order adversely affected its constitutional authority. Imran — imprisoned since Aug 5, 2023, for concealing details of Toshakhana gifts — is serving a 14-year sentence at Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail in a £190 million corruption case, also known as the Al-Qadir Trust case. However, his health has deteriorated over the course of his prison sentence, prompting outcry from members of the party. A three-judge SC bench, led by Justice Shahid Waheed and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, on Tuesday ordered Imran’s transfer from the prison to Shifa International Hospital within two days while hearing several petitions concerning the former premier’s health and meetings with his family. On Aug 20, the SC Registrar’s office returned a petition moved by the federal government, which sought to review the Aug 18 order in which it had issued directions for the moving of the ex-premier to a private hospital. The review petition was returned with the objection that the contents of the affidavit and facts along with the review petition under Article 188 of the Constitution were not drawn properly and that one of the paper books of the review petition was not in order. The registrar’s office had returned the petition with a direction to resubmit it within two weeks after removing the objections. The petition argued that the Aug 18 judgment suffered from a fundamental procedural defect, inasmuch as the prescribed procedure for moving a convict to a hospital for treatment had been overlooked. This rendered the order liable to review, it argued. Against the SC’s directions, the chief commissioner filed a review petition under Article 188 of the Constitution, arguing that the Aug 18 order appeared discriminatory. The review petition contended that Article 25 of the Constitution guaranteed the fundamental right to equal treatment, adding that the Constitution “abhors” discrimination and favouritism. “The court’s directions for the treatment of the convict in a private hospital, and that too on a report which does not disclose any condition requiring immediate medical treatment, will severely disturb the entire criminal justice system,” the review petition said. It argued that similarly placed convicts would also claim the same special treatment afforded to Imran, in violation of prison rules. Therefore, the Aug 18 order was discriminatory in nature, as similarly placed prisoners had not been afforded the same opportunity to receive medical treatment at a private hospital of their choice. “If the interim order is not recalled, it will open a floodgate of prisoners seeking similar relief, which under the prevailing law cannot be granted,” the petition warned. The review petition was filed under Article 188 of the Constitution, read with Rules 1 and 2 of Order 28 of the Supreme Court of Pakistan Rules, 2025. Citing Rule 197 of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978, the petition argued that the Aug 18 order offended the scheme of the prison rules insofar as its directions related to Imran’s admission to a private hospital. “The lives and affairs of inmates are strictly regulated by law in order to ensure their safety and well-being and to prevent any external infiltration or influence that could have an adverse effect on their lives or the process of sentences undergone by them,” it said. “A careful study of the prison rules transpires that it does not recognise the concept of engaging with a private hospital since it would inevitably open up the life of an inmate to various unsafe external variables.” The petition added that the rules only made provisions for treatment, examination, accommodation and keeping of inmates in prison hospitals, or otherwise civil hospitals and district headquarter (DHQ) hospitals if it was necessary to take them outside of the jail premises. “The order in review upsets the entire structure as envisaged and established by express provision of the rules,” it said, noting that these statutory provisions seemed to have escaped the SC’s notice. The review petition contended that the inherent power conferred by Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) may be exercised “only with a view to prevent abuse of the process of any subordinate court”, and that it offered “no remedy whatsoever” in relation to jail administration affairs. “The powers under this provision cannot be invoked to circumvent and bypass alternate remedies otherwise provided under the Prisons Act, 1894, the Prisoners’ Act, 1900 and the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978,” it said. The review petition argu