Iqbal told the magistrate that he feared for his life. He said the culprits were pressuring him to withdraw the complaint. PHOTO: anheimblog
ISLAMABAD:
A growing chorus within the legal community has expressed serious concern over what it describes as the failure of the higher judiciary to ensure availability of basic rights to former Prime Minister Imran Khan during his imprisonment.
Senior lawyers say the findings contained in the report submitted by lawyer Salman Safdar on Imran Khan’s living conditions point to serious violations of the jail manual.
For them, the issue has gone beyond routine prison administration and has entered the realm of constitutional guarantees and judicial accountability.
Lawyer Faisal Siddiqui stressed that judges must recognize the seriousness of the situation. “The judges must realize that, like Bhutto, this is another judicial assassination in the making. The only difference is that it will be the result of judicial inaction, not a judicial decision.”
However, despite the criticism, a member of PTI’s legal team remains optimistic and says he hopes for Imran Khan’s bail and release soon.
On the other hand, lawyer Sameer Khosa, who has represented the PTI in several cases, termed the report as a damning indictment of the prison administration, the government and the higher judiciary.
“The jail administration criminally ignored Imran Khan’s complaints about his eyesight and health,” he said.
“The courts did not ensure adequate access to medical professionals despite several requests to this effect. The government minimized the severity of his condition, the treatment and his post-treatment condition.”
He said the Islamabad High Court (IHC) failed to resolve numerous contempt petitions against the former jail superintendent, allowing his criminal negligence to continue and depriving him of meetings with lawyers and family members who could have highlighted the issue earlier.
“It 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 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture,” it added.
Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii said that after allegedly taking away almost his entire mandate, the state also deemed it appropriate to take away most of the sight in Imran Khan’s right eye.
“It is nothing short of a robbery. Too scared to let him out for treatment, too scared to admit that he was taken to a hospital until he denied that he ceased to serve any purpose, the State now cannot claim that it was the fault of the prison doctor or the warden,” he added.
Jaferii further said that this loss is at the doors of the houses of power populated by men who do not enjoy the will of the people to be in them. Don’t you trust me to tell you? Ask the people. This time just count your votes correctly, he added.
On the contrary, lawyer Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad Khokhar, commenting on the submission of the report on Imran Khan’s prison conditions, stated that the report appears fair and in accordance with the existing legal framework, particularly the Prisons Act 1894 and the Prison Rules Manual/Prison Manual of Pakistan.
It noted that under sections 4 and 24 of the Prisons Act, 1894, the prison administration is required to ensure safe custody, proper accommodation and lawful treatment of prisoners.
Furthermore, the chapters relating to “Treatment of prisoners” and “Privileges and facilities” of the prison manual provide for regulated access to reading material, interviews with family members and the media, subject to security and classification standards.
He emphasized that even a convicted or prosecuted prisoner retains fundamental protections under Article 9 (security of the person) and Article 14 (dignity of man) of the Constitution, and that such legal facilities are rights regulated by law, 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 require the appointment of medical officers and periodic examination of prisoners and empower the prison authorities to provide necessary medical care.
“The prison manual further specifies that when specialized treatment is required, the prisoner may be referred to outside hospitals or examined by specialist doctors with the approval of the competent authority.
He stated that the federal government’s positive response in allowing examination by external medical experts is fully consistent with the legal 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 ill-treatment.
Regarding communication and reading facilities, he noted that the prison manual contains specific provisions that regulate interviews, correspondence and access to books, subject to censorship and security controls.
These provisions allow prisoners to communicate with close family members and receive approved books and newspapers.
He stressed that the provision of telephone services for communication with children and access to books falls directly within the permissible framework of the penitentiary law and is not an extraordinary concession.
He added that denying such legal facilities without justification would itself be contrary to articles 40 and 41 of the Prison Law, which prohibit unnecessary harshness and impose an obligation on prison authorities to maintain humane conditions.
At the constitutional level, Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad Khokhar observed that in view of the 26th and 27th amendments, by which a distinct framework of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has been introduced, doubts may arise regarding the extent of the original jurisdiction of the SC in issuing administrative instructions related to prison management.
However, he appreciated that Chief Justice Yahya Afridi exercised limited intervention focused on three core areas: medical facilities, communication and access to reading material, thus demonstrating judicial restraint and compliance with constitutional limits.
He further noted that recent political developments, including high-level engagements between key officials, the appointment of opposition leaders in both chambers, moderation in public discourse, particularly the avoidance of institutional criticism, and signals favoring dialogue, have contributed to a constructive environment.
He said it is now up to all political actors to seek a structured dialogue within the constitutional framework for national stability, economic confidence and institutional harmony, and that the court’s narrow approach in the present proceedings reflects maturity and constitutional balance.
