The Supreme Court has sought assistance from Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Awan on the constitutional jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) in a case concerning the possible transfer of former prime minister Imran Khan from jail to a hospital for medical treatment.
A three-member bench headed by Justice Shahid Waheed heard the petitions related to Khan’s proposed transfer from Adiala Jail.
During the hearing, Additional Attorney General Rana Asad informed the court that the Federal Constitutional Court had issued an order a day earlier seeking the record of the case.
Justice Shahid Waheed observed that the Supreme Court had summoned government officials through an August 18 order, but none appeared before the bench. He questioned whether their failure to comply amounted to disobedience of the court’s order.
The judge also asked whether the remaining directions in the Supreme Court’s order were being implemented, including arrangements for meetings and communication between Imran Khan and his children.
Pakistan Condemns Drone Attack Attempt Near Holy Site in Makkah
The question of whether Khan’s treatment should take place at a government or private hospital was kept aside during the proceedings.
Justice Shahid Waheed raised questions about the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court, observing that the constitutional court could interpret the Constitution but questioning whether it could intervene in matters involving the Quran and Sunnah. The attorney general responded that the Supreme Court’s Shariat Bench had the authority to interpret the Quran and Sunnah.
The judge then questioned whether the Supreme Court should dismiss the petitions or suspend proceedings in light of the Federal Constitutional Court’s order, asking whether the apex court was bound by that direction.
Attorney General Mansoor Awan said the Constitution empowered the Federal Constitutional Court to call for case records. However, he said the extent of the constitutional court’s authority to summon records from other judicial forums remained an issue requiring determination.
Justice Shahid Waheed noted that the FCC order directed that the case records be summoned and the matters fixed for hearing. He said the reference to fixing cases for hearing raised questions and asked the attorney general to assist the bench on how the Federal Constitutional Court could proceed with the case.
The bench also took up the absence of the Adiala Jail administration. Justice Shahid Waheed noted that the jail administration had been summoned in person but failed to appear and asked whether warrants should be issued against the superintendent.
The attorney general requested that the official be given another opportunity to appear before the court.
The judge further observed that the government had stated in its review petition that treatment at a private hospital was not possible. The attorney general replied that the relevant record had been submitted in compliance with the court’s directions.
Justice Shahid Waheed said the bench was seeking to understand the constitutional intent behind the relevant provisions and stressed that its questions should not be interpreted negatively. He also emphasised the importance of mutual respect between the judiciary’s institutions.
The attorney general maintained that the respective jurisdictions of the Federal Constitutional Court and Supreme Court were defined by the Constitution.
The judge noted that the FCC order stated that it would determine which court had jurisdiction to hear fundamental-rights cases. He observed that fundamental rights arise in a wide range of cases, including the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court subsequently sought further assistance from the attorney general regarding the implications of the FCC’s direction to summon the case record and fix the matter for hearing.
Attorney General Mansoor Awan requested a three-week adjournment to prepare his response.
The Supreme Court accepted the request and adjourned the hearing for three weeks.
