The petition also challenges the IHC’s refusal to order transfer of Imran Khan to a private hospital.
ISLAMABAD:
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s sister Uzma Khan has approached the Supreme Court seeking his transfer to Shifa International Hospital for what the petition describes as proper treatment and continuous monitoring of his eye condition and related 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, maintains that concerns surrounding 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 wider health risks.
“In the present case, Mr Niazi’s health concerns do not end with the proper treatment of his present ailment, i.e. CRVO of his right eye. As presented, the underlying cause of the said problem is a blood clot, which has affected 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 a stroke. Such conditions require detailed examination and continuous monitoring and Needless to say, such facilities will not be available to Mr. Niazi while he is incarcerated. It is necessary that Mr. Niazi be transferred to a private hospital for detailed examination, treatment and follow-up. A delay in accessing medical facilities in cases of blood clots may also be referred to in a report published by the Pakistan Human Reports Commission in the year 2023, titled “The Sick Prisoner.” to a report titled “A Nightmare for Everyone: The Health Crisis in Pakistan’s Prisons”, published by Human Rights Watch, which highlights systemic deficiencies in the provision of timely and specialized medical care to prisoners,” the petition says.
The petition further argues that denying medical services to Imran Khan is discriminatory, citing cases in which other political leaders received extensive medical and personal services while in custody.
“Reference should be made, in particular, to the cases of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari. Mr Niazi has no intention of traveling abroad and is firm in his commitment to Pakistan, but he has the right to obtain the best possible medical treatment in the country.”
The plea also contends that the Islamabad High Court judgment did not properly interpret Rule 795 of the Prison Rules regarding access of family members to sick prisoners.
“It is submitted that the first sentence of paragraph 14 of the Impugned Judgment, which deals with the issue of family access, is not at all clear as to its meaning, intent and scope. It is evident that Rules 795 do not simply oblige “prison authorities… to inform the relatives of a convicted prisoner” “when the prisoner develops a serious medical condition”, as suggested in the Impugned Judgment, but also to put the relatives in a position where they can assist and support the prisoner A rational and intentional 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 he is provided with appropriate treatment and health care. This is only possible if they are associated with the treatment of the prisoner and are kept informed about him on a regular and continuous basis.
“In any case, as mentioned above, the Penitentiary Regulations only establish minimum standards and must be read in light of constitutional requirements. The right of a prisoner to be reunited with his family, especially in times of ill health, is well recognized.”
The petition further claims that the Islamabad High Court relied on a report submitted by the superintendent of Adiala Jail to conclude that Imran Khan was being examined regularly and his health condition had improved.
However, he maintains that the same official had systematically denied the former prime minister adequate medical facilities and access to personal doctors, lawyers and family members.
“The animosity of the Superintendent of Rawalpindi Central Jail, as well as other officials, against Mr. Niazi, and the lengths they are willing to go to infringe his rights, is evident from their conduct after the passing of the impugned sentence.”
The petition also challenges the IHC’s refusal to order transfer of Imran Khan to a private hospital on the grounds that Rule 197 of the Prison Rules only empowers the government to approve such transfers.
“Without prejudice to the above, this Court has recognized the fact that the Prison Rules are obsolete and insufficient to meet the requirements of the Constitution and require amendments to be made in consonance with the constitutional requirements and Pakistan’s obligations under international law.”
“The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have undergone a radical change in recent decades, based on amendments made to the Constitution, the law declared by the highest courts of Pakistan as well as the evolution of international law. The right of an imprisoned individual to be treated in an outside hospital, including by doctors of his or her choice when necessary, is now well recognized.”
The reason further maintains 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, ignoring his own choice.”
“All the more so when none of his family members have had access to either Mr Niazi or the doctors who supposedly treated him. It has not been independently determined what treatment Mr Niazi has been given, by whom, to what level and with what result. Only Mr Niazi’s own doctors can assess that 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 “Allowing independent doctors to examine Mr. Niazi and denying him access even to his family is clearly unjustified.”
“By refusing to allow his personal doctors access to Mr Niazi without any cogent reasoning, the impugned judgment breaches these principles. Instead, the impugned judgment has simply ordered the constitution of a medical board. The impugned judgment gives no reason why Mr Niazi’s personal doctors have not been included on the board or otherwise allowed access to him.”
The petition further maintains that prisoners remain totally dependent on the State for their well-being and that imprisonment cannot deprive them of the right to healthcare.
“It is well established that persons deprived of liberty by the State depend on the rule of 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 rights to life and personal integrity.”
“The State has the duty to protect the health of prisoners by providing them, among other things, with necessary medical care. Under international law, adequate medical care is a minimum and indispensable requirement for the State to ensure the humane treatment of prisoners in its custody. The loss of freedom can never mean the loss of the right to health. ‘Imprisonment must not be allowed to accompany the deprivation of liberty with physical and mental illness and anguish.'”
