ISLAMABAD:
Despite the passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment and the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), the Supreme Court has signaled that it is far from marginalized.
In a move that has attracted attention in legal and political circles, the apex court has fixed six cases related to former Prime Minister Imran Khan for hearing next week.
Dozens of PTI cases were transferred to the FCC following the amendment, and many expected the SC’s role in politically sensitive issues to diminish after the FCC was created.
However, despite questions of jurisdiction, the SC continues to assert its relevance in hearing political cases. In contrast, the FCC has so far not listed any PTI-related cases, adding another layer of intrigue to the evolving legal landscape.
A three-judge bench of the SC, headed by Justice Hasham Kakar and comprising Justice Salahuddin Ahmed Panwar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, will hear these cases on February 18.
The three judges are renowned for their expertise in criminal law and the bench has been handling high-profile criminal cases for the past year.
Among the six cases, the most crucial concerns the federal government’s appeals against the acquittal of Imran Khan and Shah Mahmood Qureshi in the Cypher case. A bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), comprising Justices Aamer Farooq and Miangul Hassan, set aside the trial court’s judgment and acquitted the two leaders.
Legal experts say there is very little chance that the appeal against the acquittal will be successful. They claim that the prosecution made several errors during the trial, which benefited the two PTI leaders.
Lawyer Asad Rahim Khan says the Supreme Court is presiding over a historic and unique evaporation of its powers. What was once the final arbiter of Pakistan’s constitutional promise is now a forgotten subordinate who emphasizes his ability to hear rent and divorce cases.
“But here we are: his authority in Imran Khan’s case extends only to sending a roving inquiry to report on the prison facilities. Not a word on substantive justice; on the mountain of FIRs; on anything that, in fact, implies a final resolution.”
He said the current state of the highest court should more than satisfy its critics over the past two decades: Rather than debating the merits of activism versus restraint, there now exists a system that is legally incapable of attempting either.
“What’s truly mind-boggling is why this chief justice would want to get his court to complete constitutional redundancy. What’s the point?”
Last week, a division bench of the SC headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi referred these six cases to the three-member bench.
The same court had, however, appointed lawyer Salman Safdar as friend of the court to visit Adiala jail to inspect the living conditions of Imran Khan and submit a report.
The report has already been submitted, revealing that Imran Khan said that around three to four months earlier, until October 2025, he had normal vision of 6×6 in both eyes. He then began experiencing persistent blurry and blurred vision, which he reported several times to the prison warden at the time.
However, no action was taken by prison authorities to address these complaints, the report said.
Similarly, Salman Safdar observed in his report that Imran Khan appeared visibly disturbed and deeply distressed by the loss of vision and lack of prompt and specialized medical intervention.
Throughout the meeting, Imran Khan’s eyes were watery and he repeatedly used a tissue to wipe them, reflecting physical discomfort.
Following this, the SC ordered the formation of a medical team to examine Imran Khan’s eye and allowed him to speak to his children over the phone. The bench has asked for a report on the two issues by February 16.
