ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court has rejected requests from three inmates of Adiala Jail seeking treatment at private hospitals, similar to the facility previously granted to PTI founder Imran Khan.
Justice Muhammad Asif ruled that the facility provided to Imran Khan was an interim arrangement and could not be treated as a final judgment by the Supreme Court.
The court observed that treatment at a private hospital is not a fundamental right of prisoners and that a prisoner cannot be shifted to a private medical facility without a recommendation from a medical board.
Three Prisoners Sought Similar Facilities
The petitions were filed by three Adiala Jail inmates — Owais Altaf, Ilyas Khan and Muhammad Ismail.
The petitioners had requested that they be provided facilities similar to those available to Imran Khan, including treatment at a private hospital.
They also sought permission to make telephone calls abroad.
The Islamabad High Court had reserved its decision on the petitions on August 27.
Supreme Court Order Described as Interim
In his ruling, Justice Muhammad Asif specifically addressed the argument that Imran Khan had been allowed treatment at a private hospital.
The judge noted that the Supreme Court’s order concerning Imran Khan was an interim order and could not be interpreted as a final determination establishing a general right for all prisoners to receive treatment at private hospitals.
The court therefore rejected the petitioners’ argument that they should automatically receive the same facility.
Medical Board Recommendation Required
The court held that a prisoner’s inability to receive treatment at a jail hospital or government hospital cannot, by itself, be considered a violation of a fundamental right without an assessment by a medical board.
According to the judgment, if adequate medical facilities are not available at government hospitals in Islamabad, the authorities may constitute a medical board to assess the prisoner’s condition and recommend an appropriate course of treatment.
A prisoner may then be treated at a private hospital on the recommendation of the medical board, subject to the applicable legal and administrative requirements.
The court stressed that private medical treatment cannot be claimed simply on the basis of another prisoner’s case.
Muhammad Ismail’s Petition
While rejecting Muhammad Ismail’s petition, the court observed that the petitioner had failed to establish that the August 2 office order was unlawful.
He had also failed to demonstrate that his fundamental rights had been violated by the order.
The ruling therefore found no sufficient legal basis to grant the requested relief.
Telephone and Communication Facilities
The prisoners had also requested permission to communicate with people abroad by telephone.
The court said that if WhatsApp, video calls or another legally permissible means of communication is available to prisoners, the relevant authorities may consider such a request.
However, any such facility would remain subject to prison discipline, security requirements and the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978.
This means that the availability of modern communication methods does not create an unrestricted right to make calls. Any permission must comply with the rules governing prison security and administration.
Owais Altaf’s Medical Request
In its decision concerning Owais Altaf’s request to be transferred to a private hospital, the court again emphasized the role of a medical board.
The court held that the absence of treatment at a jail or government hospital cannot automatically establish a fundamental right to treatment at a private facility.
If the available government medical facilities are considered inadequate, the appropriate mechanism is for the authorities to arrange a medical board to evaluate the prisoner.
Only where the medical board recommends treatment at a private hospital can such a transfer be considered.
The decision establishes that Imran Khan’s interim medical arrangement does not automatically extend to other prisoners and that requests for private hospital treatment must be assessed under the applicable prison and medical procedures.
The ruling also makes clear that prisoners’ requests for communication facilities must remain subject to security, discipline and the Pakistan Prison Rules.
About The Author
