ISLAMABAD:
Despite the passage of the 27th Amendment to the Constitution and the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), the Supreme Court has signaled that it is far from sidelined.
In a move that has attracted attention across legal and political circles, the Supreme Court has fixed six cases related to former prime minister Imran Khan for hearing next week.
Dozens of PTI cases were transferred to the FCC after the amendment, and many expected the SC’s role in politically sensitive cases to diminish after the FCC’s creation.
But despite jurisdictional issues, the SC continues to assert its relevance in hearing political cases. In contrast, the FCC has so far not listed any cases related to PTI, adding another layer of intrigue to the evolving legal landscape.
A three-judge SC bench headed by Justice Hasham Kakar and comprising Justice Salahuddin Ahmed Panwar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim will hear these cases on February 18.
The three judges are known for their expertise in criminal law, and the court has dealt with high-profile criminal cases in the past year.
Among the six cases, the most crucial concerns the federal government’s appeals against the acquittal of Imran Khan and Shah Mahmood Qureshi in the cypher case. An Islamabad High Court (IHC) bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan had set aside the court verdict and acquitted both the leaders.
Legal experts believe that there are very limited chances that the appeal against the acquittal will be upheld. They say the prosecution made several mistakes during the trial which have benefited both PTI leaders.
Barrister Asad Rahim Khan says the Supreme Court is presiding over a historic, once-in-a-lifetime evaporation of its powers. What was once the final arbiter of Pakistan’s constitutional promise is now a forgotten subordinate, playing up its ability to handle rent and divorce cases.
“But here we are: its authority in Imran Khan’s case extends only to sending a roving inquiry to report back on prison facilities. Not a word about substantive justice; on the mountain of FIRs; about anything, really, involving final resolution.”
He said the current state of the Supreme Court should more than satisfy its critics over the past two decades: Instead of debating the merits of activism versus restraint, there is now a system legally incapable of trying either.
“What really boggles the mind is why this chief justice would want to lead his court into complete constitutional dismissal. What’s the point?”
Last week, a division bench of the SC headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi referred these six cases to the three-member bench.
However, the same bench had appointed lawyer Salman Safdar as a friend of the court to visit Adiala jail to inspect Imran Khan’s living conditions and submit a report.
The report has already been submitted, and revealed that Imran Khan stated that approximately three to four months earlier, until October 2025, he had normal 6 x 6 vision in both eyes. He then began experiencing persistent blurred and blurry vision, which he repeatedly reported to the then prison warden.
However, no action was taken by the prison authorities to address these complaints, the report said.
Likewise, Salman Safdar noted in his report that Imran Khan appeared visibly disturbed and deeply distressed by the loss of his eyesight and the absence of timely and specialized medical intervention.
Throughout the meeting, Imran Khan’s eyes were watery and he repeatedly used a napkin to wipe them, reflecting physical discomfort.”
Following this, the SC ordered the formation of a medical team to examine Imran Khan’s eye and allowed him to talk to his children through phone calls. The bench has sought a report on both subjects by February 16 at the latest.
