The petition also challenges the IHC’s refusal to order Imran Khan’s transfer to a private hospital
ISLAMABAD:
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s sister, Uzma Khan, has approached the Supreme Court to have him transferred 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 set up a medical board for Imran Khan’s inquiry, claims that concerns about the PTI founder’s health extend beyond the treatment of Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (CRVO) in his right eye.
It says the underlying cause of the condition is a blood clot that has affected blood flow to the eye and could pose wider health risks.
“In the present case, the concerns regarding Mr. Niazi’s health do not end with the proper treatment of his current complaint, i.e. CRVO of his right eye. As stated, the underlying cause of the said problem is a blood clot which has affected the blood flow to the right eye. In medical terms, the formation of blood clots in the blood flow of a person’s blood flow can be very dangerous for a person, heart failure, or heart failure: brain causing a stroke. Such conditions require detailed examination and continuous monitoring, and it goes without saying that 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 monitoring. In this regard, reference may also be made to a report entitled “A Nightmare for Everyone – The Health Crisis in Pakistan’s Prisons” which highlights systemic deficiencies in the provision of timely and specialized medical care for prisoners,” the petition says.
The petition further claims that denial of medical facilities to Imran Khan is discriminatory, citing instances where other political leaders received extensive medical and personal facilities while in custody.
“In particular, reference can be made to the cases of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and Mr. Asif Ali Zardari. Mr. Niazi has no intention of going abroad and is firm in his commitment to Pakistan, but has the right to obtain the best possible medical treatment in the country.”
The plea also argues that the Islamabad High Court judgment did not correctly interpret Rule 795 of the Prison Rules regarding access for relatives of sick prisoners.
“It is respectfully submitted that the first sentence of section 14 of the impugned judgment dealing with the issue of access for family members is completely unclear as to its meaning, intent and scope. It is clear that Rules 795 not only obliges the “prison authorities… to inform the next of kin of a convicted prisoner” “when the inmate’s condition develops”, “when the impugned condition” but also to put the relatives in a position to help and support the inmate A rational and expedient reading of Rule 795 reveals, by implication, that the relatives of a sick prisoner have a right to access him and have a right to ensure that the prisoner receives proper care and treatment if they are informed of it on a regular, ongoing basis Otherwise no fruitful purpose is served simply by notifying them of the illness: the relatives will know that the prisoner is ill but will not be in able to do something about it.
“In any event, as noted above, the Prison Rules set out only the minimum standards and must be read in the light of constitutional requirements. A prisoner’s right to see his family, particularly in times of ill health, is well known.”
The petition further states that the Islamabad High Court relied on a report submitted by the Superintendent of Adiala Jail to conclude that Imran Khan was regularly examined and that his medical condition had improved.
However, it claims that the same official had consistently denied the former premier adequate medical facilities and access to personal doctors, lawyers and family members.
“The Superintendent, Central Jail, Rawalpindi, as well as other officials, against Mr. Niazi and the lengths they are willing to go to infringe on his rights is evident from their conduct after the delivery of the impugned judgment.”
The petition also challenges the IHC’s refusal to order Imran Khan’s transfer to a private hospital on the grounds that Rule 197 of the Prison Rules only empowers the government to approve such transfers.
“Without prejudice, the fact that the Prison Rules are outdated and inadequate to meet the requirements of the Constitution and require amendments to bring them into line with constitutional requirements and Pakistan’s obligations under international law has been recognized by this Court.”
“The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have undergone a sea change over the last few decades, based on the amendments made to the Constitution, the law declared by the superior courts of Pakistan as well as developments in international law. The right of an imprisoned person to be treated in an external hospital, including by doctors of his choice when necessary, is now well known.”
The plea also 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 the citizen’s own choice. Given the nature of Mr. Niazi’s illness, the state cannot impose doctors on him at will while ignoring his own choice.”
“All the more so when none of his family members have been given access to either Mr. Niazi or the doctors who allegedly treated him. It has not been independently established what treatment has been given to Mr. Niazi, by whom, up to what standard and with what result. Only Mr. Niazi’s own doctors can assess that and inform him and his family accordingly and complain about his health to Niazi and his family accordingly. Despite all these factors is the continued refusal to allow independent doctors to examine Mr. Niazi and the denial of access even to his family.
“By refusing to give his personal doctors access to Mr. Niazi without any cogent justification, the impugned judgment contravenes these principles. Instead, the impugned judgment has merely directed the appointment of a medical board. The impugned judgment gives no reason why Mr. Niazi’s personal physicians have not been given access to him or otherwise denied access to him.”
The petition further argues that prisoners remain entirely dependent on the state for their well-being and that incarceration cannot deprive them of their right to health care.
“It is well established that persons deprived of their liberty by the state are dependent on the state in 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 protect the person’s fundamental rights, including the right to life and humane treatment.”
“The state has a duty to protect the prisoners’ health by, among other things, providing them with the necessary medical care. According to international law, adequate medical care is a minimum and indispensable requirement for the state to ensure the humane treatment of prisoners in its custody. Loss of freedom can never mean loss of the right to health. distress.”
