SC seeks AGP’s assistance over FCC jurisdiction in Imran Khan hospital case

A three-member Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Shahid Waheed heard the matter on Wednesday amid questions arising from the FCC’s recent order seeking records of

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has sought assistance from the Attorney General for Pakistan on the constitutional question of how the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) can proceed with matters concerning the hospital transfer of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf founder Imran Khan.

A three-member Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Shahid Waheed heard the matter on Wednesday amid questions arising from the FCC’s recent order seeking records of cases concerning Khan’s proposed transfer from Adiala Jail to Shifa International Hospital. The FCC had summoned the relevant records under Article 175-E of the Constitution while hearing petitions concerning medical facilities for prisoners.

Additional Attorney General Rana Asad informed the Supreme Court that the FCC had issued an order seeking the record of the case. Justice Waheed subsequently asked the Attorney General’s office to assist the court in understanding the legal consequences of the FCC’s direction to call the records and fix the cases for hearing.

Justice Waheed questioned how the FCC could proceed with the matter and whether the Supreme Court was required to defer to the FCC’s order. He observed that the issue involved an important question regarding the respective jurisdictions of the two superior courts.

The judge also referred to the constitutional distinction between matters involving interpretation of the Constitution and other legal questions. He noted that questions concerning the interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah fall within the relevant jurisdiction of the Supreme Court’s Shariat jurisdiction, while constitutional interpretation is among the functions assigned to the FCC under the amended constitutional framework.

The Attorney General maintained that the Constitution defines the respective jurisdictions of the FCC and the Supreme Court. He also told the bench that the FCC could call for the record of cases and determine questions concerning its jurisdiction.

Justice Waheed said the Supreme Court wanted to understand the constitutional intent behind the new jurisdictional arrangement and emphasised that the questions raised by the bench should not be viewed negatively. He stressed the importance of mutual respect between the superior courts.

The proceedings also touched upon compliance with the Supreme Court’s earlier directions concerning Khan’s medical treatment and access to family members. Justice Waheed questioned whether government officials had complied with the court’s August 18 order and whether meetings and communications with Khan’s children had been facilitated as directed.

The Supreme Court had earlier ordered that Khan be transferred from Adiala Jail to Shifa International Hospital for medical examination and treatment, with arrangements for a medical board. The August 18 order also addressed his meetings with family members and communication with his sons.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Waheed also raised the issue of the appearance of Adiala Jail officials before the court and questioned whether non-compliance with the court’s directions should result in further proceedings. The Attorney General suggested that the concerned official should first be given an opportunity to explain the position.

The jurisdictional dispute emerged after the FCC sought records of Khan’s hospital-transfer proceedings from the Supreme Court and other courts. The FCC’s move came while it was hearing petitions by Adiala Jail prisoners seeking access to treatment at private hospitals.

The Attorney General ultimately requested that the Supreme Court postpone the proceedings for three weeks to allow the legal position to be considered further. The bench accepted the request and adjourned the case for three weeks.

The proceedings have brought into focus the evolving division of jurisdiction between Pakistan’s Supreme Court and the newly established Federal Constitutional Court, particularly in cases involving constitutional interpretation and fundamental rights. The legal implications of the competing proceedings are expected to become clearer as both courts consider the scope of their respective constitutional powers.