The Supreme Court has raised concerns over a possible jurisdictional conflict with the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) in the case concerning the proposed transfer of PTI founder Imran Khan from Adiala Jail to a private hospital. The three-member Supreme Court bench stressed that both superior courts should operate within their respective constitutional jurisdictions.
During the hearing, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan observed that the situation could have been different if the Federal Constitutional Court had only sought the case record. He distinguished between requisitioning a record and transferring the proceedings themselves. The judge said the Supreme Court did not want a clash between the two institutions.
The bench also sought assistance from Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan on how the proceedings should continue following the Constitutional Court’s decision to requisition records of cases pending before the Supreme Court. The hearing was subsequently adjourned for three weeks.
The dispute follows an August 18 Supreme Court order directing authorities to transfer Imran Khan from Adiala Jail to Shifa International Hospital in Islamabad for medical examination and treatment. The same bench had also directed arrangements for meetings between Khan and his family members. However, authorities instead took him to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) for a medical examination before returning him to Adiala Jail. A contempt petition was subsequently filed by Khan’s sister, Dr Uzma Khan, over the alleged non-implementation of the order.
The Federal Constitutional Court had earlier summoned the complete records of cases related to Imran Khan’s proposed hospital transfer. The move came while the FCC was hearing petitions filed by three Adiala Jail inmates seeking similar treatment at private hospitals. The court also sought records of similar matters pending before the high courts.
The FCC’s move was made under Article 175-E of the Constitution. The provision, inserted through the 27th Constitutional Amendment, gives the Federal Constitutional Court powers to call for the record of a case where questions involving constitutional interpretation arise. During its proceedings, the FCC identified questions concerning fundamental rights, prisoners’ rights and the constitutional jurisdiction of courts.
At the Supreme Court hearing, Justice Shahid Waheed questioned whether the court’s August 18 order remained operative. The attorney general responded that the order remained effectively in force. Justice Waheed also questioned why Adiala Jail authorities had not appeared before the Supreme Court after being summoned.
The judge asked whether the absence of the authorities was a communication issue or a matter of non-compliance. The attorney general suggested that the Constitutional Court’s recent order may have contributed to confusion over how the matter should proceed.
Lawyers appearing in the case also presented their positions on the constitutional questions. Senior lawyer Salman Akram Raja argued that constitutional interpretation was not required in the criminal appeal or in the contempt proceedings. Another lawyer indicated that assistance would also be provided to the court regarding Article 175-E.
The Supreme Court’s latest proceedings therefore centre on the relationship between the two courts and the legal process that should apply to the pending cases. The attorney general has been asked to assist the bench before it decides how to proceed.
The matter has become significant because the Supreme Court and Federal Constitutional Court are considering related questions arising from the same set of proceedings. The Supreme Court has indicated that it wants the constitutional and procedural position clarified while avoiding conflicting directions between the two institutions.
The case has now been adjourned for three weeks. Further proceedings are expected to focus on the legal effect of the FCC’s requisition of the records and the jurisdiction of each court over the pending matters.
