Ex-PM's 'infructuous' pleas shelved by SC

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court has adjourned sine die three criminal petitions filed by former prime minister Imran Khan, observing that the matters had largely become infructuous following the conclusion of the trial and the pendency of his appeal before the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

A two-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan heard Criminal Petitions No 921, 922 and 938 of 2023.

The petitions arose out of proceedings initiated on a complaint filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) through the Islamabad district election commissioner.

Imran was represented by senior counsel Latif Khosa, while Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan appeared on notice. Barrister Salman Safdar assisted the court as amicus curiae.

The three petitions stemmed from interlocutory and procedural orders passed during the criminal trial. In the first petition, the petitioner challenged the trial court's jurisdiction, arguing that the complaint was barred by limitation and that the complainant lacked proper authorization.

Although the IHC had remanded the matter for reconsideration, the trial court reiterated its earlier view and subsequently delivered a final judgment on August 5, 2023 in the first gift repository—Toshakhana—case. That judgment is currently under appeal before the IHC.

The second petition concerned the dismissal of an application seeking to summon certain witnesses. The petitioner had approached the IHC in revision and also sought suspension of trial proceedings.

While notice was issued, no stay order was granted. The trial proceeded to conclusion and culminated in the same August 5 judgment, which has also been challenged in appeal.

The third petition related to the IHC's refusal to transfer the complaint case from one trial court to another. Following dismissal of the transfer plea, the trial court delivered its final verdict, now pending appellate scrutiny.

 

In an order authored by the CJP, the SC said since the trial had concluded and the final judgment had been appealed before the high court, the interlocutory orders challenged in the first two petitions had merged into the final judgment. Consequently, the petitions had become infructuous.

Similarly, the challenge to the refusal of transfer was rendered academic in view of the final judgment delivered by the same court from which transfer had been sought.

The bench reiterated that all substantive grievances, including alleged procedural irregularities during trial, may be agitated before the IHC in its appellate jurisdiction, where the appeal against the August 5, 2023 judgment remains pending.

However, in deference to earlier directions issued by a three-member SC bench in August 2023—where it had been observed that the court would await the IHC's decision—the present bench adjourned the petitions sine die, to be taken up after the IHC's ruling.

Imran jail conditions report

Before addressing the merits, the court examined compliance with its earlier directions regarding a report on the petitioner's jail conditions.

The AGP informed the bench that a report had already been submitted. However, the record did not reflect judicial consideration of the same, and the report pertained to 2023, when the petitioner was incarcerated at District Jail Attock.

Given the passage of time and change in place of confinement, the court directed the superintendent of Rawalpindi Adial Jail to submit an updated report. Barrister Salman Safdar was appointed as amicus curiae to independently visit the petitioner and provide an assessment.

Both reports were subsequently placed on record. The court expressed appreciation for the amicus curiae's diligence and acknowledged the cooperation of the AGP and prison authorities.

Upon reviewing the reports, the bench observed that the petitioner's living conditions did not presently exhibit any adverse aspects. The reports were consistent regarding his daily routine, food, cell conditions, medical examinations, and security arrangements.

According to the amicus report, the petitioner expressed satisfaction with his safety, amenities, and food provisions, acknowledging the inherent constraints of incarceration.

However, concerns were noted regarding deterioration in his optical health. The AGP assured the court that a team of expert ophthalmologists would conduct a medical examination at the earliest, and in any event before February 16, 2026.

The amicus also recommended that the petitioner be allowed to communicate with his sons residing in the United Kingdom, subject to legal and security safeguards. The AGP responded positively and assured compliance in accordance with law.

Additionally, arrangements were agreed upon to provide certain requested books to support the petitioner's mental well-being.

The SC concluded that the concerns raised earlier regarding jail conditions had been adequately addressed. As the substantive issues are sub judice before the IHC, the petitions were adjourned sine die.

It clarified that if the petitioner has any further grievance, the appropriate forum remains the high court, where his appeal against the trial court's August 5, 2023 judgment is pending adjudication.