• Islamabad administration moves court again, argues Aug 18 order affects its constitutional authority
• Says private hospital treatment can expose inmates to ‘unsafe external variables’
• Contends jail rules allow treatment at jail, civil or DHQ hospitals

ISLAMABAD: The legal wrangling over the shifting of PTI founder Imran Khan to a private hospital showed no signs of abating on Friday, as the Islamabad chief commissioner again approached the Supreme Court, asserting that his office had a direct, substantial and legally protected interest in the matter and that the Aug 18 order adversely affected its constitutional authority.

On Aug 20, the SC Registrar Office had returned a petition moved by the federal government seeking a review of the Aug 18 order, through which the court had directed the shifting of the incarcerated PTI founder to Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad.

The review petition was returned with the objection that the contents of the affidavit and facts, along with the review petition filed under Article 188 of the Constitution, had not been properly drawn up and that one of the paper books of the review petition was not in order. The Registrar Office directed that the petition be resubmitted within two weeks after removal of the objections.

The petition contended that the Aug 18 order suffered from a fundamental procedural defect, inasmuch as the procedure, mode and manner prescribed for shifting a convict to a hospital for treatment had been overlooked, thereby rendering the order liable to review.

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

Against the SC’s directives, the Islamabad chief commissioner, under Article 188 of the Constitution, moved the review petition on the grounds that the Aug 18 order appeared discriminatory. The plea contended that Article 25 of the Constitution bestowed a fundamental right to be treated equally, adding that the Constitution abhorred discrimination and favouritism.

“The court 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,” said the review petition filed on Friday.

It argued that similarly placed convicts would also claim the same special treatment afforded to the respondent, Imran Khan, 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 of receiving medical treatment at a private hospital of their own choosing, it added.

The review petition, filed under Article 188 of the Constitution, read with Order 28 Rules 1 and 2 of the Supreme Court of Pakistan Rules 2025, noted that 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.

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 it gave directives regarding the admission of the former PM to a private hospital.

“The lives and affairs of inmates were strictly regulated by law to ensure their safety and wellbeing and to prevent any external infiltration or influence that could have an adverse effect on their lives or the process of sentences being undergone by them,” it added.

A careful study of the prison rules, the petition said, showed that they did not recognise the concept of engaging with a private hospital, since it would inevitably expose the life of an inmate to various unsafe external variables.

The rules, therefore, only provided for the treatment, examination, accommodation and keeping of inmates in three categories of medical facilities: (i) prison hospitals as referred to in the rules; or, where it was necessary to take a prisoner out of jail premises, (ii) civil hospitals and (iii) district headquarters hospitals.

The order under review upset the entire structure envisaged and established by the express provisions of the rules, the petition contended. It seems, the petition said, that these statutory provisions had escaped the Supreme Court’s notice, thereby resulting in an error that was floating on the surface of the record.

Had the Supreme Court taken note of the above-mentioned provisions of law, the order under review could not have been passed, the petition argued.

The review petition further contended that the inherent power conferred by Section 561-A of the CrPC could be exercised only with a view to preventing abuse of the process of any subordinate court. No other or wider action could be taken by a high court under this provision. It followed the Section 561-A afforded no remedy whatsoever in relation to the affairs of jail administration.

The petition said the powers under this provision could not be invoked to circumvent or bypass alternative remedies otherwise provided under the Prisons Act, 1894, the Prisoners’ Act, 1900, and the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978.

The review petition argued that a court seized with a criminal appeal exercised powers exhaustively defined by the CrPC 1898, namely, to hear the appeal, adjourn the matter pending its final disposal, permit the recording or introduction of additional evidence, and exercise such other specific powers as the code expressly conferred upon an appellate criminal court.

No action could be taken by such a court that was not expressly provided for within the limits and scope of the code. The relief presently sought by the petitioner regarding Imran Khan’s transfer to a private hospital, the constitution of a specialist medical board, and the ancillary directions connected therewith found no place among these appellate powers and could not, therefore, have been granted by a court exercising jurisdiction over a criminal appeal, the review petition contended.

Published in Dawn, August 22nd, 2026