• Review petition terms court directive discriminatory, seeks its recall
• Argues prison rules require govt approval for inmate’s hospitalisation
• Warns order may open floodgates for prisoners seeking private treatment

ISLAMABAD: The federal government on Wednesday petitioned the Supreme Court to review and recall its Aug 18 order directing the transfer of incarcerated PTI founder Imran Khan from Adiala jail to Shifa International Hospital, arguing that the directive was discriminatory and issued in violation of prison rules and principles of natural justice.

Moved through the Islamabad chief commissioner under Article 188 of the Constitution, the review petition argued that Rule 197 of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978, which governs the manner and mode of transferring a prisoner to a hospital, had escaped the Supreme Court’s attention while issuing directives for shifting the former prime minister from Adiala jail to the private hospital in Islamabad.

Had the Supreme Court taken note of this provision of law, the order under review could not have been passed, argued the review petition filed through Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) Advocate General Naveed Hayat Malik on behalf of the chief commissioner.

A three-judge SC bench, led by Justice Shahid Waheed and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, had issued the directives for the shifting on Tuesday while hearing several petitions concerning the former premier’s health and family meetings. The court had ordered Imran Khan’s transfer from the prison to the private hospital within two days.

According to Order IV, Rule 28 of the Supreme Court Rules, as amended in 2025, an application for review has to be fixed before the same bench that delivered the judgement. However, if the author judge recuses himself or resigns, the application will be heard by a bench comprising one or more judges of the bench that delivered the judgement or order sought to be reviewed.

After the final disposal of an application for review, no subsequent application for review will lie before the court and, consequently, will not be entertained by the court registry.

In the review petition, the chief commissioner has also cited Rule 197 of the prison rules, which states that government orders for the transfer of a prisoner will be obtained through the inspector general in cases in which a convicted or under-trial prisoner is to be admitted to a hospital for treatment.

However, in emergent cases, the jail superintendent is authorised to anticipate the government’s sanction and, if he does so, he should make an immediate report through the inspector general.

In all cases in which a prisoner is removed to a hospital for an operation, the removal should take place as close as possible to the time fixed for the operation and the prisoner should be brought back to the prison hospital as soon as this can conveniently be done.

The government’s review petition contended that the order allowing treatment of a convict at a private hospital, and that too on a report which did not disclose any condition requiring immediate medical treatment, would severely disturb the entire criminal justice system.

The petition highlighted that Article 25 of the Constitution bestows a fundamental right to be treated equally and that the Constitution abhors discrimination and favouritism.

Similarly placed convicts would claim the same special treatment afforded to the respondent in violation of the prison rules, the petition feared, adding that the Aug 18 order was therefore discriminatory in nature as similarly placed prisoners had not been afforded the same opportunity of medical treatment at private hospitals of their own choosing.

If the interim order was not recalled, it would open a floodgate of prisoners seeking similar relief which, under the prevalent law, could not be granted, it argued.

The petition said the Aug 18 order had failed to take notice that the respondent in the criminal appeal was the district election commissioner, Islamabad, but no notice had been issued to him before the order. Thus, the order was liable to be recalled for being in violation of the principles of natural justice, the petition contended.

The review petition highlighted that Article 10A of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process. Due process encompasses fair notice of hearing to both parties.

In the present case, the criminal appeal was fixed for the first time and, as such, no notice of hearing had been issued by the bench, nor had leave to appeal been granted by the court, the review petition contended.

The criminal petition itself raised serious questions as to its maintainability, an issue raised by the law officer present in court, it said. Yet the court postponed the serious question of maintainability of the petition and, on the basis of a report submitted in connected matters, formed a prima facie opinion that the report indicated deteriorating health of the respondent, whereas nothing in the report suggested that Imran Khan’s condition was any worse.

Even the court failed to appreciate that the respondent had been medically examined regularly and treated by a medical board multiple times, the government contended, adding that the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that courts should not interfere in matters requiring technical and professional skill sets, as courts lacked such expertise.

In the circumstances, the proper course for the court was to seek the advice of a medical expert on the report and thereafter decide whether it disclosed any worsening of the respondent’s condition. There is no gainsaying that Imran Khan was a convict and had to be treated in accordance with law like any other convict, the petition argued.

The jurisprudence for the grant of interim relief was well settled, the petition highlighted, adding that a court seized of a lis could only grant relief in the interim which was intermediary and, in no case, could final relief be granted at the interim stage.

The prayer of the respondent in the appeal had been noted by the court in the impugned order. He sought shifting to Shifa International Hospital for treatment of his eyes; permission for access by his personal physicians, Dr Faisal Sultan and Dr Asim Yousaf, who could be associated with all procedures of examination and treatment; that family members be duly informed and granted reasonable access during his medical check-up and treatment; and that an attested copy of the medical reports/check-ups carried out regarding the petitioner be provided to his lawyer.

All four prayers had been allowed in totality as an interim measure through the order under review, the petition regretted.

Thus, the Aug 18 order had decided the whole lis at the interim stage in limine without notice to the respondent. There was nothing left to adjudicate upon. Such a course was unwarranted by law and had always been frowned upon by the Supreme Court, the petition said.

Therefore, the Aug 18 order was in violation of settled principles of law as expounded by the Supreme Court and accordingly was liable to be set aside, the petition pleaded.

Additional document

Meanwhile, in a separate development, Dr Uzma Khan, the sister of Imran Khan, submitted an additional document to the Supreme Court.

The document mostly contained media reports suggesting how Maryam Nawaz had moved a petition before the Lahore High Court for visits to Nawaz Sharif when he was incarcerated at Kot Lakhpat jail in Lahore; admission of a PML-N plea for hearing by the LHC against Nawaz Sharif’s travel conditions, and his travel to London from Lahore in an air ambulance; letters by various international cricketers seeking better conditions for Imran Khan; a UNHR report regarding ex-PM’s confinement; UK Parliament proceedings expressing concerns over Imran Khan’s health condition; and NAB court’s orders regarding Mr Khan’s check-up by private doctors.

The Supreme Court will resume hearing on the petitions regarding shifting of Mr Khan to Shifa Hospital on Sept 16.

Published in Dawn, August 20th, 2026