The petition also challenges the IHC’s refusal to order Imran Khan’s transfer to a private hospital
ISLAMABAD:
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s sister Uzma Khan has approached the Supreme Court seeking her transfer to Shifa International Hospital for what the petition describes as appropriate treatment and continued monitoring of her eye condition and associated medical complications.
The petition, filed against the Islamabad High Court’s March 12 order directing the Islamabad administration to constitute a medical board for the examination of Imran Khan, argues that concerns over the PTI founder’s health extend beyond the treatment of central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) in his right eye.
It states that the underlying cause of the condition is a blood clot that has affected blood flow to the eye and may pose greater health risks.
“In the present case, the concerns regarding Mr. Niazi’s health do not stop at the appropriate treatment of his current complaint, namely CRVO in his right eye. As noted, the underlying cause of the said problem is a blood clot, which has affected the blood flow to the right eye. In medical terms, the formation of blood clots in a person’s bloodstream can be very dangerous: a clot can travel to the heart, causing heart failure, or to the brain causing stroke. Such conditions require detailed examination and continuous monitoring and it goes without saying that such facilities will not be available to Mr. Niazi during his incarceration. It is necessary for Mr. Niazi to be transferred to a private hospital for detailed examination, treatment and monitoring. “The Health Crisis in Pakistan’s Prisons,” published by Human Rights Watch, highlights systemic deficiencies in providing timely and specialized medical care to prisoners,” the petition said.
The petition further claims that the denial of medical care to Imran Khan is discriminatory, citing cases in which other political leaders were provided with extensive medical and personal care while in detention.
“These include the cases of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and Mr. Asif Ali Zardari. Mr. Niazi has no intention of going abroad and is firm in his commitment to Pakistan but has the right to obtain the best possible medical treatment in the country.”
The plea also argues that the Islamabad High Court judgment has not correctly interpreted Rule 795 of the Prison Rules regarding access of relatives to sick prisoners.
“It is respectfully submitted that the first sentence of paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment, dealing with the issue of visiting rights of family members, is totally unclear as to its meaning, intent and scope. It is evident that Regulation 795 does not simply require “prison authorities…to inform the relatives of a convicted prisoner” “when the prisoner develops a serious health problem”, as the impugned judgment suggests, but also to put the relatives in a position where they can help and support the prisoner. A rational and objective reading of Rule 795 reveals, by clear implication, that the relatives of a sick prisoner have the right to access him and have the right to ensure that appropriate care and attention is provided to the prisoner. This is only possible if they are involved in the treatment of the prisoner and are kept informed about it on a regular and continuous basis.
“In any event, as mentioned above, the prison rules set only minimum standards and must be read in light of constitutional requirements. A prisoner’s right to meet his family, particularly in times of ill health, is well recognized.”
The petition further states that the Islamabad High Court relied on a report submitted by the superintendent of Adiala Prison to conclude that Imran Khan was being regularly examined and his health condition had improved.
However, it argues that the same official had systematically denied the former prime minister adequate medical facilities and access to personal doctors, lawyers and his family members.
“The animosity of the Superintendent of Rawalpindi Central Prison, as well as other officials, towards Mr. Niazi, and the extent to which they are prepared to go to undermine his rights, is clear from their conduct following the delivery of the impugned judgment.”
The petition also challenges the IHC’s refusal to order Imran Khan’s transfer to a private hospital on the grounds that Rule 197 of the Prison Rules empowers the government alone to approve such transfers.
“Without prejudice, the fact that the Prison Rules are outdated and insufficient to meet the requirements of the Constitution and require the amendments to be consistent with the constitutional requirements and Pakistan’s obligations under international law has been recognized by this Court.”
“The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have undergone a drastic change over the past few decades, based on amendments to the Constitution, law declared by the superior courts of Pakistan as well as developments in international law. The right of an incarcerated person to be treated in an outside hospital, including by doctors of their choice if necessary, is now well recognized.
The plea further argues that the right to life, dignity and humane treatment includes access to doctors chosen by the patient himself.
“The right to life, dignity and humane treatment includes the right to consult a doctor of one’s choice. Given the nature of Mr. Niazi’s illness, the State cannot impose doctors of its choice on him, while ignoring its own choice.”
“Especially since no member of his family had access to either Mr. Niazi or the doctors who would have treated him. It has not been independently established what treatment was administered to Mr. Niazi, by whom, to what standards and with what result. Only Mr. Niazi’s doctors can assess this and inform him and his family accordingly. Mr. Niazi and his family have repeatedly complained that his life and health are in danger. Despite all these factors, the continued refusal to allow independent doctors to examine Mr. Niazi, and denying access even to his family is clearly unjustified.
“By refusing to allow his personal physicians access to Mr. Niazi without any cogent reasoning, the impugned judgment violates these principles. Instead, the impugned judgment simply ordered the constitution of a medical commission. The impugned judgment gives no reason why Mr. Niazi’s personal physicians were not included in the commission or allowed access to him.”
The petition further argues that prisoners remain entirely dependent on the state for their well-being and that incarceration cannot deprive them of the right to health care.
“It is well established that persons deprived of their liberty by the State are dependent on the State in law and in fact for all their needs. By depriving a person of liberty, the State acquires a special level of responsibility and must guarantee and safeguard the fundamental rights of the person, including the right to life and humane treatment.”
“The State has a duty to protect the health of prisoners by providing them, among other things, with required medical care. Under international law, adequate medical care is a minimum and indispensable requirement for the State to guarantee the humane treatment of prisoners in its custody. Loss of liberty can never mean loss of the right to health. “Incarceration should not be allowed to compound deprivation of liberty with illness and physical and mental distress.””
