Treatment at Shifa Hospital: IHC to hear on 10th IK’s plea seeking permission

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) will hear on March 10 a petition filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, seeking permission to undergo medical treatment at Shifa International Hospital.

On the same date, a division bench of Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro will take up Imran Khan’s appeal in the Toshakhana criminal case.

Sardar Latif Khosa, along with Salman Akram Raja and other lawyers, appeared before the court to represent Imran Khan.

The bench asked about the nature of objections raised by the Registrar’s Office on the miscellaneous application. Khosa replied that one of the objections pertained to the non-provision of a certified copy of the power of attorney.

Later, the court overruled the objections and directed the IHC office to number the petition. The bench also issued notices to the respondents and deferred the hearing until March 10.

The court further directed the Registrar’s Office to schedule Imran Khan’s main Toshakhana appeal for hearing on March 10.

Earlier, during the proceedings, the bench inquired from the defence counsel why arguments were not being presented in the main appeal. Khosa replied that they were ready for it. However, he requested that the matter be taken up after two days. The bench then said it would hear both the main appeal and the miscellaneous application together.

The court also inquired whether the paper-book in the appeal was ready and directed the office to prepare the same, noting that it would take two to three days.

PTI lawyer Sardar Latif Khosa had moved the IHC seeking the transfer of the party’s founder, Imran Khan, to the hospital for his specialized eye treatment.

Khosa filed the petition under Section 561-A CrPC seeking Imran’s immediate shifting to Shifa International Hospital for specialized eye treatment, alleging that jail authorities have been conducting medical examinations in complete secrecy.

The petition stated that the petitioner was taken into custody on 5.08.2023 and initially remained confined at District Jail, Attock, for a period of approximately three months. Thereafter, he was transferred to Central Jail, Rawalpindi, where he has since been continuously incarcerated.

It added that throughout this prolonged period of detention, his fundamental and statutory rights have consistently been violated, while earlier his family members and close associates were permitted to meet him in accordance with jail rules, it has now been over four to five months that no meeting has been allowed. His family has even been denied access to him.

Khosa adopted the stance that the petitioner is 73 years of age, and his advancing age and declining health are matters of grave concern not only for his family but for the people of Pakistan at large. Being one of the most widely supported political leaders in the country, public interest in his well-being is natural and unavoidable. Yet, despite this, he remains deprived of basic human necessities during a period when his medical condition demands care and transparency.

He further said that for the past few months, reports have surfaced across Pakistan raising serious concerns regarding the deterioration of the petitioner’s eyesight and overall health. He cited a report submitted before the SC by amicus curiae Barrister Salman Safdar, about Imran’s “blurred and hazardous vision.”

The petition expressed alarm over a medical check-up conducted inside Central Jail, Rawalpindi, on February 15, which was carried out in the “complete absence” of Imran’s family members, personal doctors, or legal representatives. It added that no prior intimation was given to them regarding the examination. Imran was subsequently taken to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) on Feb 23 for further procedures, once again excluding his personal physicians, Dr Faisal Sultan and Dr Asim Yousaf, as well as his family members and lawyers.

The counsel maintained that nothing is known regarding the outcome of the petitioner’s medical examination and or procedures conducted in PIMS hospital. Such secrecy is mind-boggling and not acceptable on any hypothesis.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026