ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court, in view of Article 175-E of the Constitution, sought assistance from the Attorney General on whether the Supreme Court or the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) is empowered to hear petitions seeking the shifting of former premier Imran Khan to a private hospital for medical examination.
A three-member bench, headed by Justice Shahid Waheed and comprising Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, on Wednesday heard petitions filed by Uzma Khan and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leaders.
On August 18, the bench had directed the government to shift Imran Khan to Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, for medical examination.
However, the FCC, on September 15, 26, while hearing the appeals of three Adiala Jail prisoners, requisitioned the record from the Supreme Court and the High Courts. In para 6 of the order, the FCC directed its office “to requisition the record of cases (related to Imran Khan medical check-up) from the Supreme Court of Pakistan through its Registrar and fix them along with the appeals arising out of these petitions for hearing.”
During the proceedings, Justice Waheed told Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, who appeared before the SUPREME COURT bench pursuant to its call, that what bothered them was the fixation of the cases before the FCC, as stated in the FCC order. He also observed that fixing cases before the FCC requisitioned from the Supreme Court did not fall under Article 175-E (5) of the Constitution.
According to Article 175-E (5), the FCC may, on its own motion or otherwise, if it considers that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, call for the record of any case pending before any court and make such order in the case as it thinks fit.
The SUPREME COURT written order said, “The FCC order gives rise to questions of considerable constitutional and legal significance, including questions concerning the interpretation and application of the Constitution, the relevant provisions of law and, where necessary, the applicable principles of Islamic law.”
It also said, “Without entering into those questions at this stage, we consider it appropriate, in the first instance, to seek the assistance of the Attorney General for Pakistan regarding the proper course to be adopted in these proceedings and, in particular, the FCC order bears upon the proceedings before us.”
“This course is considered appropriate to avoid any situation that may be inconsistent with the proper functioning of the two apex judicial institutions of the country and, at the same time, to preserve the spirit of judicial comity,” it added.
AGP Awan submitted that the situation that has arisen is unprecedented and that the recent constitutional amendments, together with the questions flowing from them, require careful and meticulous examination. He, therefore, sought three weeks to prepare his submissions so as to render effective assistance to the Court.
Though the counsels of Uzma Khan and other petitioners requested the court to pass an order for the non-compliance of its August 18 decision. However, Justice Waheed said, “We leave it to the Attorney General regarding the compliance of the 18th August order.”
The cases have reached the apex court through two distinct streams of law. One arises under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, while the other arises under the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003.
The SUPREME COURT order said: “The jurisdiction to examine the questions arising in these proceedings and to determine the merits of the respective positions advanced by the parties exclusively vests in this Court. Proceeding on this premise, on 18thAugust, 2026, we passed an interim order concerning the medical care of the prisoner.” Justice Waheed wrote that the August 18 order was made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
The case is adjourned for three weeks.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments