SC orders Adiala superintendent, other officials to submit replies on denial of access to Imran

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday ordered the Adiala jail superintendent, Punjab’s home secretary, the Islamabad advocate general and the Punjab advocate general to furnish their replies within three weeks in a case concerning the denial of access to incarcerated PTI founder Imran Khan.

A petition was filed by PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja, challenging the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) October 23, 2025, dismissal of his contempt petition, which sought enforcement of the court’s directives regarding visitation rights for Imran’s legal team at Adiala jail.

The directives were issued today by a three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.

During the hearing, Justice Mazhar said the bench would not be available next week, but the appeal would be scheduled for hearing, directing that appeals be fixed within three weeks.

The court also directed that the IHC’s order of Oct 23, 2025, be placed on record during the hearing.

In his appeal filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, Raja contended that the IHC, while disposing of his contempt petition, relied solely on the oral assertion of the Adiala jail superintendent regarding alleged compliance with previous judicial directions.

The appeal contended that the high court failed to call for the relevant record or verify from jail authorities the implementation of earlier directions and standard operating procedures (SOPs) for arranging regular meetings with the former premier at Adiala jail.

“This constitutes a miscarriage of justice and a failure to exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution,” the petition contended.

The petition further contended that the IHC failed to appreciate that its own judgment of March 24, 2025, had laid down clear and unambiguous directions regarding visitation rights of the PTI founding chairman with his legal team and nominated coordinators, and that the executive authorities were legally bound to comply with judicial orders unless modified or set aside by a superior forum.

“The right of a prisoner to consult and communicate with his legal counsel is an integral part of Articles 4, 9, 10, and 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantee protection of law, liberty, fair trial, and due process,” the petition said, adding that the high court, while disposing of the matter on administrative grounds, failed to safeguard these fundamental and inviolable rights.

“The high court misapplied Rule 265 of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978, without examining whether its rigid application is consistent with constitutional guarantees. These rules, being subordinate legislation, cannot override or restrict fundamental rights or judicial orders issued under Article 199 of the Constitution,” it argued.

The case was fixed for hearing in line with an earlier understanding reached during a May 20 meeting between Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi and Raja, who is also representing Imran in various cases.

Members of the opposition had protested outside the SC, demanding that cases involving the incarcerated PTI founder be scheduled for hearing and that he be allowed to meet his family.

Dr Uzma Khan’s appeal

The bench, while hearing a petition filed by Dr Uzma Khan, sister of the PTI founder, directed the petitioner to furnish a vakalatnama (power of attorney) and file a fresh application for early hearing of her appeal.

“Upon the receipt of the power of attorney and the application for early hearing, the Registrar’s Office will schedule the case for hearing,” the court observed.

Advocate Uzair Karamat Bhandari argued that the appeal had not been numbered in the Supreme Court (SC) for the past month, while the power of attorney of the PTI founder had not been received for two months.

At this, Justice Mazhar inquired whether the power of attorney was being submitted today, to which the lawyer replied that it was initially unavailable, and the appeal had therefore been filed through a special power of attorney.

During the hearing, Justice Hassan remarked that if the case required an early hearing, a proper application for early hearing should be filed.

Filed through senior advocate Bhandari, Uzma explained that she was not a party to the proceedings before IHC but aggrieved by the impugned judgment.

In this regard, she also referred to the SC decision in H.M. Saya’s case that allowed persons adversely affected by a decree or order to challenge the same before the apex court.

In her application, she pleaded that her brother and his wife, Bushra Bibi, were currently incarcerated at Adiala jail, while his two sons lived abroad.

“Being his sister and a doctor by qualification, the applicant has natural love and affection for her brother and is seriously concerned about his health and well-being, which is being jeopardised by the official acts and omissions of the respondents,” she alleged in her petition.

The petition further stated that jail authorities had obstinately refused to obtain a power of attorney in favour of the advocate-on-record signed by Imran, rendering him unable, so far, to file a petition against the impugned judgement.

“If the high court judgement is not set aside, it can directly and adversely affect the applicant’s case,” it argued, adding that the applicant was therefore aggrieved by, and had locus standi to challenge, the impugned judgement.

The SC was requested to suspend the IHC ruling during the pendency of the petition and order an immediate medical examination of Imran by physicians of his choice, including Khurram Mirza, Asim Yusuf, Faisal Sultan and Samina Niazi.

The petition contended that the IHC’s denial directly violated the applicant’s fundamental right to security of person under Article 9 of the Constitution.