Iqbal told the judge he feared for his life. He said the culprits pressured 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 superior judiciary to ensure the availability of fundamental rights to former prime minister Imran Khan during his imprisonment.
Senior lawyers say the findings of the report submitted by lawyer Salman Safdar regarding Imran Khan’s living conditions point to serious violations of the prison manual.
For them, the issue has moved beyond routine prison administration and entered the domain of constitutional guarantees and legal accountability.
Lawyer Faisal Siddiqui emphasized that the judges must recognize the seriousness of the situation. “Judges should realize that, like Bhutto, this is another judicial murder in the making. The only difference is that this will be the result of judicial inaction, not a judicial decision.”
Despite the criticism, however, a member of PTI’s legal team remains optimistic, saying he expects Imran Khan’s bail and release from jail soon.
On the other hand, lawyer Sameer Khosa, who has represented the PTI in several cases, termed the report a damning indictment of the jail administration, the government and the overall judiciary.
“The prison administration criminally neglected Imran Khan’s complaints regarding his eyesight and health,” he said.
“The courts failed to ensure adequate access to doctors despite several applications to this effect. The government downplayed the seriousness of his condition, the treatment and his condition after treatment.”
He said the Islamabad High Court (IHC) failed to address several contempt petitions against the former prison warden, allowing his criminal negligence to continue while depriving him of meetings with lawyers and family that could have highlighted the issue earlier.
“It establishes beyond any doubt that Imran Khan is being subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of the Constitution and Pakistan’s international law obligations under the ICCPR and the Convention Against Torture,” he added.
Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii said that after allegedly removing almost his entire mandate, the state has also seen fit to take away most of the sight in Imran Khan’s right eye.
“It’s nothing short of theft. Too afraid to release him for treatment, too afraid to admit they took him to a hospital until they denied it stopped serving any purpose, the state can’t now claim it was the fault of the prison doctor or warden,” he added.
Jaferii further said that this loss lies at the doorstep 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 say that? Just ask the people. Only count their votes properly this time, he added.
In contrast, lawyer Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad Khokhar, commenting on the submission of the report regarding the prison conditions of Imran Khan, stated that the report appears fair and in accordance with the applicable legal framework, particularly the Prisons Act, 1894 and the Pakistan Prison Rules/Jail Manual.
He noted that under Section 4 and Section 24 of the Prisons Act, 1894, the prison administration is bound to ensure safe custody, proper accommodation and lawful treatment of prisoners.
In addition, the “Treatment of Prisoners” and “Privileges and Facilities” chapters of the prison manual provide regulated access to reading material, interviews with family members and communication facilities, subject to security and classification rules.
He stressed that even a convicted or under-trial retains fundamental protections under Article 9 (security of person) and Article 14 (dignity of man) of the Constitution and that such statutory facilities are rights governed by law, not executive discretion.
Commenting specifically on medical treatment, Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad Khokhar referred to sections 37 and 39 of the Prisons Act, 1894, which mandate the appointment of doctors and regular examination of prisoners and empower the prison authorities to provide necessary medical care.
“The Prison Manual further elaborates that where 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 investigations by outside medical experts is fully in line with the statutory mandate and constitutional obligation to preserve life and health under Article 9. Such relief, he added, strengthens the rule of law and removes allegations of ill-treatment.
Regarding communication and reading facilities, he noted that the prison manual contains specific provisions governing interviews, correspondence and access to books, subject to censorship and security screening.
These provisions allow prisoners to communicate with close family members and receive approved books and newspapers.
He emphasized that the provision of telephone facilities for communication with children and access to books falls entirely within the permitted framework of the Prison Act and is not an extraordinary concession.
He added that denial of such lawful facilities without justification would itself be in violation of Sections 40 and 41 of the Prisons Act, which prohibits undue harshness and imposes duties on prison authorities to maintain humane conditions.
On the constitutional level, Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad Khokhar noted that in view of the 26th and 27th Amendments, whereby a separate framework for the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has been introduced, questions may arise as to the extent of the SC’s original jurisdiction to issue administrative directions regarding prison management.
However, he appreciated that Chief Justice Yahya Afridi exercised limited and focused intervention confined to three core areas – medical facility, communication and access to reading material – thereby demonstrating judicial restraint and adherence to constitutional boundaries.
He further noted that recent political developments, including high-level engagements between key officials, the appointment of leaders of the opposition in both chambers, restraint in public discourse, especially the avoidance of institutional criticism, and signals favoring dialogue, have contributed to a constructive environment.
He said it is now incumbent upon all political stakeholders to pursue a structured dialogue within the constitutional framework of national stability, economic confidence and institutional harmony and that the court’s restrained approach in this case reflects constitutional maturity and balance.
