- Petition says prison rules prohibit private hospital admissions.
- Petition raises security risks and external influence concerns.
- Review plea questions order issued sans hearing commissioner.
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad chief commissioner has challenged the Supreme Court’s decision allowing Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan’s transfer to a private hospital, saying it was based on clear legal errors.
The top court on Tuesday ordered the transfer of the former prime minister to Shifa International Hospital from Adiala jail, meeting a longstanding demand of his party and family, who had raised concerns about his health.
Imran, the cricketer-turned-politician, aged 73, has been in jail in Rawalpindi since August 2023, convicted in a string of cases that he and his party maintain were “politically driven” following his ouster in 2022.
However, citing security concerns, authorities took the deposed premier to the government-run Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (Pims) under tight security on Thursday night, just moments before the 48-hour deadline set by the top court expired.
The review petition, filed against the Supreme Court’s August 18 order, argues that transferring Imran to a private hospital violates the Pakistan Prison Rules 1978.
The plea states that prison laws contain no provision for admitting a prisoner to a private hospital, adding that prisoners can only be treated in a jail, civil or district headquarters hospital under the law.
It further argues that transferring a prisoner to a private hospital would increase security risks and the possibility of external influence.
The petition also states a prisoner’s insistence on receiving treatment from a private doctor of their choice is inconsistent with prison rules. It maintains that government doctors are highly experienced professors and internationally recognised experts in their respective fields.
The chief commissioner contended that the Supreme Court issued its decision without making him a party to the case or issuing him a notice. According to the plea, deciding the matter without hearing the other party was contrary to Article 10-A of the Constitution.
The review petition further states that the medical board’s report did not mention that Imran’s condition was critical. It argues that the court should not have made a direct decision based on the medical report without obtaining the opinion of technical experts.
The plea also maintains that Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to matters concerning jail administration.
It argues that a court hearing a criminal appeal cannot exercise powers that are not provided for under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The petition states that prisoners’ rights concerning movement and meetings are legally restricted during their incarceration. It further argues that allowing a prisoner two foreign telephone calls per week would violate Rule 265 of the Prison Rules.
The review plea also argues that granting the final relief sought as interim relief was contrary to established legal principles.
It says granting special concessions to one prisoner would violate the principle of equal rights under Article 25 of the Constitution, adding that allowing a private hospital transfer could prompt other prisoners to make similar demands.
