• Justice Farooq questions why prisoners cannot be shifted to Pims or Polyclinic
• Inmates seek private hospital treatment similar to relief granted to PTI founder
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Monday questioned the validity of the jail manual if it was to be applied discriminatorily, adding that it was “clear” on the transfer of prisoners to hospital.
The court made the observations while hearing pleas filed by inmates at Adiala jail seeking treatment at private hospitals, similar to the relief granted to PTI founder Imran Khan.
The inmates had moved the Islamabad High Court (IHC) last month seeking relief after the Supreme Court (SC) on August 18 directed the authorities to transfer the PTI founder to Shifa International Hospital for medical examination and treatment.
However, the petitions were dismissed on August 31 after IHC held that a prisoner had no legal right to be transferred to a private hospital of his choice and the primary responsibility for prisoners’ treatment rested with the state’s administrative structure and government hospitals.
Subsequently, the inmates approa-ched the FCC last week to challenge the IHC order.
A three-member FCC bench headed by FCC Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, including Justice Ali Baqar Najafi and Justice Aamer Farooq, took up the petitions on Monday.
Advocate Akhtar Cheena appeared on behalf of one of the prisoners, Muhammad Ilyas Khan, while the other inmates — Mohammad Ismail Hussain and Owais Altaf — were represented by Advocates Irfan Nasir Cheema and Syed Jaffer Baqir, respectively.
“There should not be any discrimination when the jail manual is very clear,” observed Justice Najafi during
the hearing.
“Why only private hospitals for treatment and not hospitals like the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (Pims) or the Polyclinic Hospital when Rule 197 of the Pakistan Prison Rules 1978 is very clear?” asked Justice Farooq.
Rule 197 of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978 governs the manner and mode of the transfer of a prisoner, the expense of which has to be borne by the state.
During Monday’s hearing, when advocate Cheena cited the SC’s Aug 18 order, CJ Khan asked why the lawyer had not chosen to become a party in the case regarding Imran Khan’s transfer to a private facility pending before the SC, which is scheduled to be heard on Sept 16.
The lawyer, however, responded that the present appeal was filed under Article 175E of the Constitution against the IHC order.
Under Article 175E, the FCC has exclusive original jurisdiction in disputes between the federal and provincial governments. However, its powers will be limited to issuing declaratory judgements rather than enforcing decisions directly.
The counsel said that relief similar to that granted to Mr Khan had become necessary after the Aug 18 order.
One of the inmates’ appeals had contended that Rule 197 prescribed that prisoners could be shifted to a civil hospital, arguing that the distinction being drawn by the government that the term only referred to a public hospital was wrong.
The petition said the wording implied a distinction between a military and government hospital, adding that against the backdrop of the Aug 18 SC order, any inmate with a serious ailment could be shifted to a private hospital for treatment, paid by their family.
The petition said the client had severe internal bleeding issues and had been brought to the public hospital for treatment eight times during the last two months.
“Given the condition of the public hospital system, we have no trust that my client will get appropriate medical attention at a public hospital,” the petition said.
The FCC postponed further proceedings until Tuesday (today), observing that the case involved interpretation of the law.
Published in Dawn, September 15th, 2026
