Observes that prisoners could not claim treatment at a private hospital as a fundamental right
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday dismissed petitions filed by three inmates of Adiala jail seeking treatment at private hospitals and permission to speak to their families abroad as permitted in the case of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf founder Imran Khan, observing that private medical treatment could only be allowed on the recommendation of a medical board.
The Supreme Court on August 18 ordered that Imran be taken to Islamabad’s Shifa International Hospital within two days for medical examination and treatment, while directing the government to constitute a specialised medical board for his care.
Justice Mohammad Asif announced the decisions on petitions filed by prisoners Owais Altaf, Ilyas Khan and Mohammad Ismail. The court had reserved its verdict on August 27 after hearing arguments in the three separate cases.
In its ruling, the high court observed that prisoners could not claim treatment at a private hospital as a fundamental right without a medical board determining that the required treatment was unavailable either at the jail hospital or at a government hospital.
The petitioners had sought facilities similar to those extended to the PTI founder, including treatment at private hospitals and telephone contact with family members living overseas.
Read: Inmates seek treatment at private hospitals
The court said that where the necessary medical facilities were not available at government hospitals in Islamabad, a medical board could be constituted to assess the prisoner’s condition and recommend treatment at a private hospital.
“Treatment of a prisoner at a private hospital can only be allowed on the recommendation of a medical board,” the court maintained.
While dealing with Mohammad Ismail’s petition, the court observed that the petitioner had failed to establish that an August 2 office order was unlawful or that it violated any of his fundamental rights.
The court, however, noted that if the law provided prisoners with access to WhatsApp, video calls or any other means of communication, the relevant authorities could consider such a request.
Any such facility, it said, would remain subject to prison discipline, security requirements and the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978.
The court also addressed the petitioners’ reliance on directions issued by the Supreme Court (SC) on August 18 and observed that there was “no dispute” that judgments of the SC were binding on all high courts.
However, the IHC noted that the Supreme Court’s August 18 directions were interim in nature and that the case cited by the petitioners was still pending before the apex court.
“An interim order cannot be treated as a final judgment,” the court observed.
The three petitioners had approached the IHC seeking relief regarding their medical treatment and communication with family members abroad. The court ultimately declined to order their transfer to private hospitals, holding that such treatment was subject to the established legal and medical procedure.
The rulings clarify that while prisoners may be provided necessary medical care and communication facilities permitted by law, access to private hospitals or specific modes of communication cannot automatically be claimed as a fundamental right.
On August 25, the three petitioners’ counsel prayed to the court to provide reprieve to their clients in line with the relaxations offered to Imran.
Read more: Info ministry urges foreign media to reflect ‘documented facts’ in reporting on Imran Khan
During the proceedings, Barrister Akhtar Chhina, counsel for one of the petitioners, submitted that his client was suffering from haemophilia and internal bleeding and had been taken to the hospital around 10 times during the past two months without significant improvement. He contended that the required treatment was currently available in Pakistan only at Shifa International Hospital.
He questioned whether a prisoner could be denied treatment at a private hospital if a required procedure, including a liver transplant, was not available at a government hospital.
Advocate Syed Jafar, appearing through video link for Altaf, submitted that his client was suffering from fever and a heart illness and argued that access to appropriate medical treatment was a fundamental right of a prisoner. He requested that Altaf be shifted to Shifa International Hospital, as treatment was allegedly not available at a government facility.
Counsel for the third petitioner submitted that Ismail had been imprisoned at Adiala Jail for nine years. He said the petitioner had a brother living in Dubai but had not been in contact with him for years. The counsel requested the court to direct the jail authorities to facilitate a WhatsApp call between the prisoner and his brother.
