Govt to pursue legal options over Imran’s private hospital transfer: Tarar

The federal government on Wednesday filed a review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s decision allowing incarcerated Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan to be transferred to Islamabad’s Shifa International Hospital for assessment and treatment by a multidisciplinary medical board.

The review petition was filed through the Islamabad Chief Commissioner Syed Waqar Hussain, a day after the Supreme Court issued its ruling.

The Supreme Court ordered Imran’s transfer to the private hospital for treatment following a hearing on a medical board report and a report submitted by the Adiala jail superintendent a day before.

The reports recommended more frequent meetings between the PTI founder and his immediate family and wife to help manage his blood pressure and anxiety, while also highlighting concerns about his health.

The order came on the condition that future medical reports will not be made public and the transfer cannot be politicised. The court also ordered authorities to allow meetings between Imran and his family, which authorities abided by and allowed Imran’s sister, Noreen, to meet him later that day.

The petition sought the recall and review of the SC’s order of August 18, arguing that the direction to shift the prisoner to a private hospital was “in excess of jurisdiction” and had overlooked the statutory procedure governing the transfer of prisoners to hospitals.

“The Order under Review suffers from errors of law floating on the surface of the record, hence liable to be reviewed,” the petition stated.

The government’s principal objection was that the transfer of a convicted prisoner to a hospital was specifically governed by the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978, particularly Rule 197, which set out the procedure for moving prisoners outside prison for treatment.

“It seems the above statutory provision escaped notice of the Honourable Court, thereby resulting into an error which is floating on the surface of the record,” the petition said.

It argued that, had the court considered Rule 197, “the Order under review could not have been passed”.

Under Rule 197, the petition said, government orders were required through the Inspector General before a convicted or under-trial prisoner could be admitted to a hospital outside prison for operative or other special treatment, except in emergencies where the prison superintendent could anticipate government sanction.

It further pointed out that where a prisoner was taken to hospital only as an outpatient or for an X-ray examination, the superintendent could authorise the visit himself.

But where a prisoner was to be moved to a hospital in another station, “the orders of the Inspector General must be obtained in advance”, the petition said.

It also highlighted the rule that prisoners admitted to hospitals outside prison “shall always be guarded by the Police”, while expenses incurred by hospital authorities for the treatment of prisoners were to be borne by the Health Department.

The government further challenged the order on constitutional and procedural grounds, arguing that it had been passed without proper notice to the relevant authorities.

The petition said Article 10A of the Constitution guaranteed the right to a fair trial and due process, which included “fair notice of hearing to both the parties”.

“In the instant case the Criminal Appeal was fixed for the first time and as such no notice of hearing has been issued by the Bench nor leave to appeal has been granted by the Court,” it stated.

The government said the petition itself had raised a “serious question” about its maintainability, an objection that had been raised by the law officer present in court.

“Yet the Honourable Court postponed the serious question as to maintainability of the petition,” it said.

According to the review petition, the Supreme Court had formed a prima facie view of deteriorating health on the basis of a report submitted in connected proceedings, whereas “nothing in the report suggested that respondent’s condition is any worse”.

It argued that Imran had been medically examined regularly and treated by medical boards on multiple occasions.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Court should not interfere in matters which require a technical and professional skill set as the Court lack such expertise,” it said.

“In the circumstances, the proper course for the Court was to seek advice of the medical expert on the report and thereafter decide if it discloses any worsening of the condition of the respondent.”

The petition stressed that Imran was a convicted prisoner and “has to be treated in accordance with law like any other convict.”

The government also challenged the SC’s decision on the grounds that interim relief had effectively granted all the substantive relief sought by Imran before the case had been properly heard.

It pointed to the four requests made by Imran: transfer to Shifa International for treatment of his eyes; access for his personal physicians Dr Faisal Sultan and Dr Asim Yousaf; access for family members during his medical examination and treatment; and copies of medical reports and check-ups for his lawyer.

“All the four prayers have been allowed in totality as an interim measure,” the petition said.

It argued that the SC had therefore “decided the whole lis at interim stage in liminie without notice to the respondent”.

“There is nothing left to adjudicate upon,” it stated, adding that such a course was “unwarranted by the law” and had “always been frowned upon by the Supreme Court”.

The government also invoked Article 25 of the Constitution, arguing that the order raised questions of equal treatment among prisoners.

“Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan bestows a fundamental right to be treated equally. Constitution abhors discrimination and favoritism,” the petition said.

It further argued that ordering treatment of a convict at a private hospital would “severely disturb the whole criminal justice system”. “Similarly placed convicts will claim the same special treatment afforded to the respondent in violation of the prison rules,” it stated.

The government warned that allowing Imran to receive treatment at a private hospital of his choosing could have wider consequences for the prison system.

“If the interim order is not recalled it will open a flood gate of prisoners seeking similar relief which under the prevalent law cannot be granted,” the petition said.

It described the Supreme Court’s order as “discriminatory in nature”, arguing that similarly placed prisoners had not been afforded the same opportunity to receive treatment at private hospitals of their own choosing.

The petition also stressed that the Chief Commissioner, ICT, had not been made a party to the proceedings and had not been served notice before directions were issued that directly affected the administration of the prison system.

“The impugned Order is liable to be recalled on this score alone being in violation of the principles of natural justice.”

The government separately sought leave to file the review petition, arguing that the Chief Commissioner had a “direct, substantial and legally protected interest” in the matter because the order affected the administration of the criminal justice system and the authority of the ICT administration.

The application said the order had been passed despite the Chief Commissioner not being “arrayed as a party to the lis” and without any notice having been issued to him.

It relied on a previous SC judgment, arguing that a person adversely affected by a court order could seek leave to challenge it even if they had not been formally impleaded, provided they ought properly to have been made a party.

The government maintained that the SC had overlooked the “procedure, mode and manner prescribed for shifting of a convict to a hospital for treatment”, rendering the order liable to review.

The review petition also challenged the order’s interim directions on the basis that the SC had itself left the question of maintainability undecided.

In its August 18 order, the SC had said that the issue of maintainability, along with other objections raised by the respondents, would be examined at the next hearing.

The court had nevertheless directed that Imran be shifted to Shifa International Hospital within two days as an interim measure and ordered the government to constitute a multidisciplinary medical board comprising a physician, general surgeon, internal medicine specialist, eye specialist and cardiologist.

It had also directed that Imran’s personal physician Dr Faisal Sultan and one of Imran’s sisters, Dr Uzma Khan, be allowed to remain associated with his medical examination and treatment.

The government’s review petition challenged these directions as having effectively granted the relief sought in the original proceedings before the court had determined whether the petition itself was maintainable.

The government’s review petition sought the recall of the August 18 order in its entirety. “In view of the submission made above, it is respectfully prayed that the Review Petition may graciously be allowed and the impugned order dated 18-08-2026 be recalled/reviewed,” it said.

The Supreme Court had fixed the underlying matter for further hearing on September 16.

Ministers accuse PTI of politicising Imran’s health

Earlier, Information Minister Attaullah Tarar said the government would pursue legal options against the Supreme Court’s order allowing Imran Khan to be transferred to a private hospital, while accusing PTI of violating the court’s directions by politicising his health.

Speaking at a press briefing alongside Minister of State for Interior Talal Chaudhry, Tarar said the government had never politicised Imran’s health and maintained that he was entitled to medical treatment under the law.

However, he said the government was examining the legal aspects of allowing a prisoner to receive treatment at a private hospital and would pursue the matter before the court.

“Health should never be politicised. Whether we were in opposition or in government, our party has always maintained that position,” he said.

Tarar recalled that during the PTI government, Imran had taunted the opposition over prisoners seeking home-cooked food or making comments that when “they go to jail they fall sick.”

Read: PTI leaders, Fazl welcome SC order for Imran Khan’s hospital transfer

“We never saw our party talking about his health or treatment, or taunting him about his health. Medical facilities are the right of every prisoner, and he has been provided those facilities,” he said.

“The question is whether a private hospital can be specified. Can every prisoner get this facility? We are paying attention to the legality of this matter,” he said.

Tarar said the government would continue to ensure that Imran received treatment in accordance with the jail manual, while legal objections relating to the private hospital would be pursued.

He said the government had consistently urged PTI not to make political statements about Imran’s health, adding that the Supreme Court had also addressed the issue of politicisation during its proceedings.

Tarar also referred to remarks previously made by Imran in Washington regarding restrictions on home-cooked food for prisoners. “Fear God and ask for forgiveness for the things you politicised and the taunts you made,” he said.

The information minister said the government’s position remained that Imran should receive all treatment available to him under the law and the jail manual.

Tarar further said the government’s concerns over the private hospital were consistent with the position taken by Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar on Tuesday, when he said the government would review the Supreme Court’s order and pursue appropriate legal remedies.

The law minister had argued that transferring a prisoner to a private hospital could raise broader legal questions, particularly whether the same facility would have to be made available to other prisoners.

He had said the government would approach the Supreme Court for review and seek an appropriate modification of the order, while proposing that Imran could instead be examined at a tertiary-care government hospital. The government had also indicated that specialists from other major institutions could be included in the medical board.

Meanwhile, Chaudhry said the government had maintained from the outset that matters concerning prisoners should be handled by the institutions legally responsible for them, rather than through political pressure, threats, strikes or protests.

“Ultimately, that is what happened,” Chaudhry said, referring to the Supreme Court’s intervention.

He questioned PTI’s celebration of the ruling, saying the party had previously rejected the constitutional amendments under which the judges who issued the decision had been appointed or selected, but was now celebrating their ruling as a victory.

“One such small decision, which we believe concerns every prisoner’s right, has been made. On the issue of health, Tarar has already said that our government does not discuss their health,” he said.

Read More: Law minister signals review as cabinet colleague vows to honour SC’s Imran hospital order

He accused PTI of having previously politicised the medical conditions of political opponents.

“They used to politicise our medical reports. None of us politicised their reports,” he said, referring to the illness of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s wife, Kulsoom Nawaz, and alleging that PTI members had sought to determine whether she was genuinely ill.

He also said that PTI representatives had previously discussed Nawaz’s medical condition at government and party forums and had sent doctors to examine Sharif while he was imprisoned.

“The court said you cannot do politics because it knew you would. The only sympathy card they have left is Imran Khan’s health. Who is doing politics now?” he asked.

Chaudhry criticised PTI for linking the ruling to a possible National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) rather than simply accepting the court’s decision. “If the courts have given relief, then good. They should not have an excuse to politicise his health and use it as an agenda,” he said.

He also questioned why PTI was focusing on Imran’s health rather than its performance in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. “They have created such an agenda that people do not focus on their performance,” he said. He also criticised overseas-based vloggers “whose job is to say that he has passed away. They want to earn dollars, so they lie.”

Chaudhry said the government’s focus remained on addressing the problems faced by the people and improving the country’s economic and diplomatic position.

“Our only focus is the people of Pakistan and their issues. The prime minister and other ministers are standing shoulder to shoulder to get Pakistan out of its problems,” he said.

Also Read: SC orders Imran Khan’s transfer to Shifa International Hospital for treatment

The government’s position had initially appeared divided on Tuesday, with Parliamentary Affairs Minister Tariq Fazal Chaudhry saying the Supreme Court’s decision would be implemented in letter and spirit, while Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said the government would examine the legal parameters of the order.

The government had subsequently maintained that it was not opposed to Imran receiving appropriate medical treatment but had reservations about his transfer to a private hospital and was considering legal options to challenge or modify that part of the order.

In February, it was revealed by a report prepared by Barrister Salman Safdar on the SC’s direction that Imran had informed officials that his right eye was functioning at only 15% capacity. Safdar submitted the report to a two-member bench. As a result, the SC ordered that Imran be granted access to his personal physicians in Adiala Jail.

Imran and Bushra Bibi remain incarcerated in Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail. They were sentenced on December 20, 2025, to 17 years in prison in the Toshakhana-II case, which pertains to allegations that the couple unlawfully retained a Bulgari jewellery set gifted by the Saudi crown prince during an official visit to Saudi Arabia.

Imran has been in custody since August 2023, serving a sentence in a £190 million corruption case. He also faces pending trials under the Anti-Terrorism Act in connection with protests on May 9, 2023.

New medical report surfaces

A medical report submitted to the Supreme Court found that Imran had been experiencing fluctuating blood pressure, palpitations, headaches, restlessness and significant anxiety. He was examined by a PIMS cardiologist on August 1, who recorded his blood pressure at 140/100mmHg and recommended measures to reduce his mental stress, including more frequent meetings with his wife and access to reading material.

A four-member medical board that examined him on August 10 recorded his blood pressure at 140/80mmHg and recommended one hour of walking and relaxation, as well as more frequent interaction with his immediate family and spouse to help control his anxiety and blood pressure.

The report said Imran had undergone at least 39 medical check-ups since his incarceration, with jail medical officers checking him three times a day. It also said his ECG was normal and that his vision had improved to almost normal following treatment for an eye condition. The jail administration maintained that he was receiving adequate healthcare and regular medical monitoring.

PTI, however, questioned the authenticity and completeness of the medical documentation and demanded that Imran be examined by his personal doctors, Dr Asim Yusuf and Dr Faisal Sultan, as well as an independent medical board.

The government rejected claims that Imran was being denied proper medical care. Adviser to the Prime Minister on Political and Public Affairs Rana Sanaullah told the Senate that Imran was receiving the best available treatment from specialists and that his medical care and jail meetings were being conducted in accordance with the law and relevant court orders.