The Pakistani government filed a review petition Wednesday challenging a Supreme Court order to move former Prime Minister Imran Khan to a private hospital [1, 3].
This legal battle highlights the ongoing friction between the judiciary and the administration of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif over the treatment of the jailed political leader. The dispute centers on whether a high-profile prisoner can bypass standard state protocols for medical care.
The Supreme Court previously directed that Khan be transferred from Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi to Shifa International Hospital in Islamabad [1, 2]. The court's order came following reports that the health of the former prime minister was deteriorating [1, 2]. In addition to the transfer, the court allowed Khan to be visited by his family, and his personal physician [1, 3].
The government argues that the transfer violates existing prison regulations [1, 2]. According to government officials, prison rules require that inmates receive medical treatment at a public hospital rather than a private facility [1, 2]. By filing the review petition, the administration seeks to overturn the mandate to use Shifa International Hospital, which is a private institution [2].
Khan remains incarcerated at Adiala Jail while the legal challenge proceeds [1, 3]. The government has not specified a timeline for the review, but the petition formally contests the court's authority to override prison medical protocols for a specific inmate [3].
This conflict follows a series of legal disputes between Khan and the state since his removal from office. The current disagreement over hospital access is the latest instance of the government and the judiciary clashing over the rights, and treatment of the former leader [1, 3].
“The government argues that prison regulations require treatment at a public hospital, not a private one.”
This legal challenge underscores a broader power struggle in Pakistan between the executive branch and the judiciary. By contesting the Supreme Court's order, the government is attempting to assert the primacy of administrative prison regulations over judicial interventions. The outcome will likely set a precedent for how the state manages the medical needs of high-profile political prisoners and the extent to which the courts can mandate private healthcare for detainees.
