Pakistan court seeks attorney general's assistance in prisoners' medical treatment case

Pakistan’s Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) issued notices to the Attorney General for Pakistan and provincial authorities on Monday, seeking legal assistance on constitutional questions raised in appeals filed by three prisoners demanding access to private hospital care equal to the medical facilities granted to incarcerated Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan.

What legal questions did the court raise regarding Rule 197 and private healthcare?

A bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi examined petitions challenging an Islamabad High Court (IHC) ruling that dismissed the inmates' requests to be shifted to private medical facilities at their families' expense.

Justice Farooq cited Rule 197 of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978, noting that while the provision clearly mandates that the government bear the cost of a prisoner's medical treatment, care is standardly provided at public civil hospitals.

"There is no ambiguity in Rule 197," Justice Farooq observed during the hearing, questioning the legal rationale for seeking private care: "Why only a private hospital? Why not a government hospital?" Counsel for the petitioners argued under Article 25 of the Constitution that denying equal access to private medical facilities violates fundamental rights, emphasizing that one inmate suffering from severe internal bleeding had been hospitalized at a public facility eight times without achieving adequate recovery.

How does the petition connect to Imran Khan's hospital transfer?

The legal challenge originates from an interim Supreme Court order issued on August 18, 2026, which directed prison authorities to transfer Imran Khan from Rawalpindi's Adiala Jail to Shifa International Hospital in Islamabad for specialist examination and treatment regarding retinal vein occlusion and cardiac concerns.

The federal government subsequently filed a review petition arguing that shifting a convict to a private hospital violated statutory prison rules and set an unsustainable legal precedent.

Following the IHC's dismissal on September 1, where judges ruled that imprisonment involves lawful restrictions and does not grant a legal right to private hospital transfers, the three inmates appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court on September 8. The court adjourned the hearing until Tuesday, September 15, directing the Attorney General to assist the bench on the statutory boundaries of inmate healthcare.