Govt challenges SC verdict in IK treatment case

ISLAMABAD: The federal government has challenged the Supreme Court’s order directing the authorities to move Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan to Shifa International Hospital for treatment, terming the order discriminatory.

Islamabad Chief Commissioner Syed Waqar Hussain on Wednesday filed a review petition, requesting the Supreme Court to recall its order.

A three-member bench, headed by Justice Shahid Waheed and comprising Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, a day ago (Tuesday) directed the government to move Imran to Shifa International Hospital within the next two days, facilitate his meetings with the family members once a week, and allow him to speak with his sons twice a week.

READ MORE: Govt says will implement SC’s order about IK

The order came on the condition that future medical reports will not be made public and the transfer cannot be politicised. The government was ordered to make adequate security arrangements for the entire period during which the prisoner remains at Shifa International Hospital for treatment.

The petition contended that the direction to shift the prisoner to a private hospital was “in excess of jurisdiction” and had overlooked the statutory procedure governing the transfer of prisoners to hospitals.

“The Order under Review suffers from errors of law floating on the surface of the record, hence liable to be reviewed,” the petition stated.

The government’s principal objection was that the transfer of a convicted prisoner to a hospital was specifically governed by the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978, particularly Rule 197, which set out the procedure for moving prisoners outside prison for treatment. “It seems the above statutory provision escaped notice of the Court, thereby resulting in an error which is floating on the surface of the record,” the petition said.

The petition argued that, had the court considered Rule 197, “the Order under review could not have been passed”. It pointed out, under Rule 197, the government orders were required through the Inspector General before a convicted or under-trial prisoner could be admitted to a hospital outside prison for operative or other special treatment, except in emergencies where the prison superintendent could anticipate government sanction.

It further pointed out that where a prisoner was taken to hospital only as an outpatient or for an X-ray examination, the superintendent could authorise the visit himself. But where a prisoner was to be moved to a hospital in another station, “the orders of the Inspector General must be obtained in advance”, the petition said.

The petition said Article 10A of the Constitution guaranteed the right to a fair trial and due process, which included “fair notice of hearing to both the parties”. While in the instant case the Criminal Appeal was fixed for the first time, and no notice of hearing has been issued by the Bench nor leave to appeal has been granted by the Court,” it stated.

The government said the petition (of Imran Khan) itself had raised a “serious question” about its maintainability, an objection that had been raised by the law officer present in court. “Yet the Court postponed the serious question as to maintainability of the petition.”

The review petition also said that the Supreme Court had formed a prima facie view of deteriorating health based on a report submitted in connected proceedings, whereas “nothing in the report suggested that respondent’s condition is any worse”.

The petition said that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Court should not interfere in matters which require a technical and professional skill set as the Court lacks such expertise. “In the circumstances, the proper course for the Court was to seek advice of the medical expert on the report and thereafter decide if it discloses any worsening of the condition of the respondent.”

The petition stressed that Imran was a convicted prisoner and “has to be treated in accordance with law like any other convict.”

The government also challenged the SC’s decision because interim relief had effectively granted all the substantive relief sought by Imran Khan before the case had been properly heard.

It pointed to the four requests made by Imran: transfer to Shifa International for treatment of his eyes; access for his personal physicians Dr Faisal Sultan and Dr Asim Yousaf; access for family members during his medical examination and treatment; and copies of medical reports and check-ups for his lawyer. “All the four prayers have been allowed in totality as an interim measure,” the petition said.

It argued that the Supreme Court had therefore “decided the whole lis at interim stage in limine without notice to the respondent”. “There is nothing left to adjudicate upon,” it stated, adding that such a course was “unwarranted by the law” and had “always been frowned upon by the Supreme Court”.

The government also invoked Article 25 of the Constitution, arguing that the order raised questions of equal treatment among prisoners. “Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan bestows a fundamental right to be treated equally. Constitution abhors discrimination and favoritism,” the petition said.

It further argued that ordering treatment of a convict at a private hospital would “severely disturb the whole criminal justice system”. “Similarly placed convicts will claim the same special treatment afforded to the respondent in violation of the prison rules,” it stated.

The government warned that allowing Imran to receive treatment at a private hospital of his choosing could have wider consequences for the prison system. “If the interim order is not recalled, it will open a floodgate of prisoners seeking similar relief, which under the prevalent law cannot be granted,” the petition said.

It described the Supreme Court’s order as “discriminatory in nature”, arguing that similarly placed prisoners had not been afforded the same opportunity to receive treatment at private hospitals of their own choosing.

The petition also stressed that the Chief Commissioner, ICT, had not been made a party to the proceedings and had not been served notice before directions were issued that directly affected the administration of the prison system.

“The impugned Order is liable to be recalled on this score alone being in violation of the principles of natural justice.”

The government separately sought leave to file the review petition, arguing that the Chief Commissioner had a “direct, substantial and legally protected interest” in the matter because the order affected the administration of the criminal justice system and the authority of the ICT administration.

The application said the order had been passed despite the Chief Commissioner not being “arrayed as a party to the lis” and without any notice having been issued to him.

The government maintained that the SC had overlooked the “procedure, mode and manner prescribed for shifting of a convict to a hospital for treatment”, rendering the order liable to review.

Imran and Bushra Bibi remain incarcerated in Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail. They were sentenced on December 20, 2025, to 17 years in prison in the Toshakhana-II case, which pertains to allegations that the couple unlawfully retained a Bulgari jewellery set gifted by the Saudi crown prince during an official visit to Saudi Arabia.

Imran has been in custody since August 2023, serving a sentence in a £190 million graft case. He also faces pending trials under the Anti-Terrorism Act in connection with protests on May 9, 2023.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026