The Supreme Court of Pakistan has sought assistance from Attorney General Mansoor Awan to clarify how the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) can hear a case concerning the potential transfer of former prime minister Imran Khan to a hospital for medical treatment. A three-member bench, headed by Justice Shahid Waheed, adjourned the hearing for three weeks after accepting the Attorney General’s request for a deferral.
Government Officials Fail to Appear
During the proceedings, Additional Attorney General Rana Asad informed the bench that the Federal Constitutional Court had issued an order a day earlier and had sought the record of the case. Justice Waheed noted that the Supreme Court had summoned government officials through its August 18 order, but no officials appeared before the court. He questioned whether their failure to appear amounted to disobedience of the court’s directive.
The judge acknowledged there appeared to be some misunderstanding and inquired whether the remaining parts of the Supreme Court’s order were being implemented, including arrangements for meetings and communication between Imran Khan and his children. The question of whether treatment should take place at a government or private hospital was set aside during the hearing.
Jurisdictional Questions Raised
Justice Waheed raised concerns about the jurisdiction of the constitutional court, stating that it could not interfere in matters concerning the Quran and Sunnah and could only interpret the Constitution. He emphasized that matters other than constitutional interpretation remained with the apex court.
The Attorney General responded that the Supreme Court’s Shariat Bench could interpret the Quran and Sunnah. Justice Waheed then questioned whether the Supreme Court should dismiss the petitions or halt proceedings, asking whether it was bound by the order of the Federal Constitutional Court.
The Attorney General stated that the Constitution allowed the Federal Constitutional Court to call for case records, adding that the extent of its power to summon records from different forums needed to be determined.
Concerns Over Constitutional Court’s Directive
Justice Waheed observed that the Federal Constitutional Court’s order stated records should be summoned and cases fixed for hearing. He said the wording regarding fixing cases for hearing was a matter of concern and asked the Attorney General to assist the court on how the Federal Constitutional Court could hear the case.
The judge also noted that the Adiala Jail administration had been summoned in person but did not appear, asking whether warrants should be issued against the jail superintendent. The Attorney General requested that the official be given another opportunity.
Government Position on Medical Treatment
Justice Waheed said the government had stated in its review petition that treatment at a private hospital was not possible. The Attorney General replied that the record had been provided in accordance with the court’s order.
The judge stressed that the court was seeking to understand the constitutional intent and believed in mutual respect between the judiciary, adding that the questions should not be interpreted negatively. The Attorney General said the jurisdictions of the Federal Constitutional Court and Supreme Court were defined by the Constitution.
Justice Waheed observed that the constitutional court’s order stated it would determine which court could hear fundamental rights cases. He noted that fundamental rights arise in every case, including the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings.
Hearing Adjourned
The Supreme Court sought further assistance from the Attorney General on the implications of the constitutional court’s direction to call for records and fix cases for hearing. Attorney General Mansoor Awan requested that the hearing be deferred for three weeks, a request the apex court accepted.
