Islamabad administration has approached the Supreme Court seeking an early hearing of its review petition against the court’s August 18 order concerning the transfer of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan from Adiala Jail to a private hospital.
The application was filed by the Chief Commissioner of Islamabad, requesting the Supreme Court to take up the review petition at the earliest possible opportunity. The review petition seeks reconsideration, modification and withdrawal of the court’s August 18 order regarding Imran Khan’s proposed transfer to a private medical facility.
The administration has challenged the directions concerning the transfer of Imran Khan from Adiala Jail to a private hospital. It has also questioned the court’s directions relating to his medical examination and treatment through a medical panel.
According to the application, the matter requires urgent consideration because the original judicial order is subject to a specific timeline. The Islamabad administration therefore argues that delaying the hearing could have practical consequences for the implementation of the court’s directions.
The review petition also raises broader legal and constitutional questions concerning the jurisdiction of the courts following the 27th Constitutional Amendment. The administration has argued that the issue is not limited to the question of providing medical facilities to a prisoner but also involves questions regarding the constitutional and legal authority under which such directions can be issued.
The petition has specifically referred to Article 175(2) of the Constitution and relevant prison laws. Article 175 concerns the establishment and jurisdiction of courts, and the administration has raised questions about the extent to which the Supreme Court can issue directions relating to the management and medical treatment of a prisoner.
The legal challenge comes amid an ongoing dispute over Imran Khan’s health and his access to medical treatment while incarcerated. His family and political supporters have sought appropriate medical care and have raised concerns regarding his treatment in prison.
The government and Islamabad administration, however, have challenged the Supreme Court’s directions concerning his transfer to a private hospital. Their review petition seeks clarification of the legal basis for the order and asks the court to reconsider the directions.
The administration’s request for an early hearing indicates that officials consider the matter time-sensitive. Since the August 18 order reportedly contains time-bound directions, the authorities want the review petition to be heard before the existing arrangements are implemented or become difficult to reverse.
The petition also challenges the involvement of a medical panel in assessing and treating Imran Khan. The administration has raised questions about whether such directions fall within the court’s constitutional jurisdiction or should instead be dealt with under existing prison and medical procedures.
The dispute therefore involves both medical and constitutional dimensions. At one level, the case concerns the appropriate medical treatment of an incarcerated individual. At another, it raises questions about the relationship between judicial authority, prison administration and the legal framework governing prisoners’ medical care.
The Islamabad administration has asked the Supreme Court to consider these questions urgently and to review its previous order. It has requested that the August 18 directions be reconsidered, amended or withdrawn.
The case could have implications beyond Imran Khan’s individual circumstances. A decision by the Supreme Court on the scope of judicial intervention in the medical treatment and transfer of prisoners could provide guidance for similar cases in the future.
For now, the Islamabad administration is seeking an expedited hearing, arguing that the time-sensitive nature of the Supreme Court’s original order makes an early decision necessary. The Supreme Court will determine whether to accept the request for an early hearing and how to proceed with the review petition.
About The Author
