Iqbal told the magistrate that he feared for his life. He said the culprits were pressuring him to withdraw his complaint. PHOTO: anheim blog
ISLAMABAD:
A growing chorus within the legal community has expressed serious concerns over what it describes as the failure of the higher judiciary to ensure respect for the fundamental rights of former Prime Minister Imran Khan during his imprisonment.
Senior lawyers say the findings contained in the report submitted by lawyer Salman Safdar regarding Imran Khan’s living conditions indicate serious violations of the jail manual.
For them, the issue goes beyond routine prison administration and into the realm of constitutional guarantees and judicial accountability.
Lawyer Faisal Siddiqui stressed that judges must recognize the seriousness of the situation. “The judges should understand that, like Bhutto, this is another judicial murder in the making. The only difference is that this will be the result of judicial inaction, not a judicial decision.”
However, despite the criticism, a member of PTI’s legal team remains optimistic, saying he expects Imran Khan to be granted bail and released from jail soon.
On the other hand, lawyer Sameer Khosa, who has represented the PTI in several cases, termed the report a damning indictment against the prison administration, the government and the higher judiciary.
“The prison administration has criminally neglected Imran Khan’s complaints regarding his eyesight and health,” he said.
“The courts failed to ensure adequate access to medical professionals despite several requests to do so. The government underestimated the seriousness of his condition, the treatment and his condition after treatment.”
He said the Islamabad High Court (IHC) had failed to act on numerous contempt petitions against the former prison superintendent, allowing his criminal negligence to continue while preventing him from meeting lawyers and family members who could have highlighted the issue earlier.
“This establishes beyond doubt that Imran Khan is being subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of the Constitution and Pakistan’s obligations under international law under the ICCPR and the Convention Against Torture,” he added.
Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii said that after allegedly removing almost his entire warrant, the state also saw fit to remove most of Imran Khan’s right eye.
“This is nothing short of theft. Too scared to let him out for treatment, too scared to admit that they actually took him to the hospital to the point of denying that it was of no use, the state can no longer pretend that it was the fault of the prison doctor or the warden,” he added.
Jaferii added that this loss is at the gates of the houses of power populated by men who do not enjoy the will of the people to sit there. You don’t trust what I say? Just ask people. This time, just count their votes correctly, he added.
On the other hand, lawyer Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad Khokhar, commenting on the submission of the report regarding the conditions of Imran Khan’s detention, said that the report appears fair and in accordance with the existing legal framework, particularly the Prisons Act, 1894 and the Pakistan Prisons Rules Manual.
He observed that under sections 4 and 24 of the Prisons Act 1894, the Prison Service is required to provide safe custody, suitable accommodation and lawful treatment of prisoners.
In addition, the chapters relating to “Treatment of Prisoners” and “Privileges and Facilities” of the prison manual provide for regulated access to reading materials, interviews with family members and means of communication, subject to security and classification rules.
He stressed that even a convicted or under-trial prisoner retains the fundamental protections under Article 9 (security of the person) and Article 14 (dignity of man) of the Constitution, and that these legal facilities are rights governed by law and not by executive discretion.
Commenting specifically on medical treatment, Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad Khokhar referred to Sections 37 and 39 of the Prisons Act, 1894, which prescribe the appointment of doctors and regular examination of prisoners and authorizes prison authorities to provide necessary medical care.
“The prison manual further states that when specialized treatment is required, the inmate may be referred to outside hospitals or examined by specialist doctors with the approval of the competent authority.
He said the positive response of the Federal Government in allowing examinations by external medical experts is fully consistent with the statutory mandate and constitutional obligation to preserve life and health under Article 9. Such facilitation, he added, strengthens the rule of law and dispels allegations of mistreatment.
Regarding communication and reading facilities, he noted that the prison manual contains specific provisions regulating interviews, correspondence and access to books, subject to censorship and security checks.
These arrangements allow inmates to communicate with close family members and receive approved books and newspapers.
He stressed that the provision of telephone services to communicate with children and access books is clearly within the framework permitted by prison law and does not constitute an extraordinary concession.
He added that refusing such legal facilities without justification would itself be contrary to sections 40 and 41 of the Prisons Act, which prohibit unnecessary harshness and impose a duty on prison authorities to maintain humane conditions.
On the constitutional front, Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad Khokhar observed that in view of the 26th and 27th Amendments, through which a separate framework of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) was introduced, questions may arise as to the extent of the SC’s initial jurisdiction in issuing administrative instructions relating to the management of prisons.
However, he appreciated that Chief Justice Yahya Afridi exercised limited and focused intervention, confined to three main areas – medical facilities, communication and access to reading materials – thereby demonstrating judicial restraint and respect for constitutional limits.
He further noted that recent political developments, including high-level engagements between key officials, appointment of opposition leaders in both houses, restraint in public discourse, particularly avoidance of institutional criticism, and signals favoring dialogue, have contributed to a constructive environment.
He said that it is now the responsibility of all political actors to pursue a structured dialogue within the constitutional framework for national stability, economic confidence and institutional harmony, and that the approach taken by the Court in the present proceedings reflects constitutional maturity and balance.
