ISLAMABAD: Dr Uzma Khan, sister of incarcerated PTI founder Imran Khan, on Tuesday again approached the Supreme Court (SC) seeking an early fixation of the contempt plea against the federal government over alleged flouting of the court’s order to shift the ex-premier to Shifa International Hospital (SIH) for medical treatment.

On Aug 18, a three-member SC bench had directed the government to shift Imran to Islamabad’s SIH within the next two days as it heard several petitions concerning his health. However, the government took the PTI founder to the government-run Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (Pims) for a check-up and then transported him back to prison.

The SC’s office has already turned down Uzma’s two previous requests for an early hearing of the contempt plea, which was filed on Aug 22. The second early hearing request was submitted after the SC had fixed the main petition for Sept 16. However, on that day, the SC deferred the matter in the wake of the Federal Constitutional Court’s (FCC) directives.

In both denials, the registrar office had stressed that the fixation policy required proceedings to be conducted turn-wise. It noted that 94 different criminal original petitions belonging to the same category were already pending before the SC for hearing.

Subsequently, on Tuesday, a fresh application for early hearing was filed through Advocate Uzair Karamat Bhandari on behalf of Dr Uzma, following the PTI’s claim that Imran’s blood pressure surged above 190 recently.

Moved under Order XXXV Rules 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2025, the application requests the SC to order fixation of the contempt plea for next week.

The contempt plea had named Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Islamabad Chief Commissioner Sohail Ashraf, Interior Secretary Ahmed Raza Sarwar, Punjab Inspector General Prisons Mian Salik Jalal and Adiala jail’s Superintendent Sajid Baig as respondents.

In the fresh application, Dr Uzma has stressed the urgency in the matter due to reports circulating in the media that the incarcerated leader’s blood pressure recently rose to 192 and that there were serious concerns about his health.

“If an early hearing of this matter is not granted, the applicant’s and Imran Khan’s guaranteed rights will continue to be prejudiced,” the application stated, arguing that his fundamental rights, particularly with respect to health and well-being, as well as access to medical advice and facilities and family members, would continue to be violated.

The application stated the previous contempt plea had also sought court directives to arrange and facilitate weekly meetings between Imran and his family members, including petitioners and his other sisters, Noreen Niazi and Aleema Khan, along with his cousin Qasim Zaman.

It had also sought phone calls between Imran and his sons Kasim Khan and Sulaiman Khan twice a week.

On Sept 16, resuming the hearing on petitions concerning Imran’s health, the SC had expressed reservations over the Federal Constitutional Court’s (FCC) directive that cases pertaining to the PTI founder’s hospital transfer be fixed before it.

However, the SC had deferred its own proceedings, observing that propriety demanded deferment. At the time, the court said it was adjourning the proceedings for a date after three weeks, and is yet to be fixed for hearing.

The FCC had issued the orders, directing the court’s office to requisition the relevant cases from the SC and fix them before it under Article 175-E of the Constitution.

The directive was issued on a plea by three Adiala jail inmates seeking relief similar to that provided to Imran by the SC in the Aug 18 interim order.

A three-judge SC bench, headed by Justice Shahid Waheed and including Justices Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, had also observed that fixing cases before the FCC requisitioned from the SC did not fall under clause 5 of Article 175-E of the Constitution.

Article 175-E, which was inserted in the Constitution through the 27th Constitutional Amendment, empowers the FCC to call for the record of any case and authorises it to decide matters involving major questions of constitutional law.