• Adiala official says ex-PM is housed separately due to security concerns, not confined to ‘single cell’
• PTI counsel alleges prolonged isolation, restricted access to lawyers and family, and mental distress caused by prison conditions; party rejects jailer’s report
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday reserved its order on petitions alleging the solitary confinement of PTI founder Imran Khan and his spouse, Bushra Bibi, as Adiala jail authorities denied the claim in a report that PTI rejected as contrary to the facts.
Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro was hearing the petitions against solitary confinement of former prime minister Imran Khan and his spouse Bushra Bibi.
Justice Soomro observed that the court would issue its order after examining the record and directed the parties to submit, in writing, any judicial precedents they intended to rely upon.
The Advocate General argued that the petitions were not maintainable, denying solitary confinement allegations and stating that Imran Khan was being provided facilities beyond those available to B-class prisoners.
He submitted that, owing to security considerations arising from Imran Khan’s political profile, he was housed separately from other inmates.
However, he argued that such arrangements could not be termed solitary confinement. The jail authorities, he added, had complied with previous court directions by providing newspapers, books, and other facilities.
Justice Soomro questioned the nature of the security arrangements and asked whether Imran Khan had been extended B-class facilities. The Advocate General replied that he was receiving facilities even better than those prescribed for B-class prisoners.
Adiala Jail Superintendent Sajid Baig informed the court that the PTI founder was not confined to a single cell for 24 hours, explaining that he had access to a compound comprising seven cells where he could move freely during the day. He contended that solitary confinement required a prisoner to remain continuously locked in a cell, which was not the case.
Barrister Salman Safdar, the counsel for ex-PM, disputed the government’s stance, arguing that his clients were effectively being subjected to prolonged isolation amounting to mental torture. Referring to his meeting with Mr Khan earlier this year, held on the directions of the Supreme Court, he said his client had complained of deteriorating eyesight, restricted access to lawyers, political colleagues, and family members, as well as an inadequate supply of books.
The counsel said Imran Khan, despite facing over 300 cases, had been denied regular legal consultations, with a 65-minute meeting in April being his first meaningful interaction with lawyers in months.
The counsel sought a prison inspection panel, weekly phone calls with Imran Khan’s sons, regular meetings with lawyers and family, and permission for him to meet Bushra Bibi under prison rules.
During the proceedings, books sent by Mr Khan’s family for delivery to the prison were produced before the court.
Aleema Khan also addressed the court, alleging that her brother had received only three books since December and had met family members only a handful of times, mostly pursuant to court orders.
The Advocate General argued that Imran Khan’s eyesight issue was beyond the scope of the petitions, but Justice Soomro observed that the medical board’s report should have been placed before the court.
Separately, the superintendent of Adiala jail submitted a report denying that Bushra Bibi had been kept in solitary confinement or subjected to discriminatory treatment.
The report stated that the practice of solitary confinement had virtually ceased in prisons and that Bushra Bibi was being accommodated separately only because of security concerns arising from her status as the spouse of a former prime minister.
PTI rejects Adiala report
Meanwhile, PTI rejected a report submitted by the Adiala jail authorities to the IHC, which stated the former prime minister was not being held in solitary confinement.
In a statement, PTI described the jail authorities’ claim as “contrary to facts” and alleged that it was an attempt to mislead both the court and the public. The PTI maintained that Imran Khan had been subjected to “extraordinary restrictions”, alleging that meetings with his family and visitors had repeatedly been denied despite court orders.
Published in Dawn, August 7th, 2026
