SC moved for Imran's transfer to hospital
Former prime minister Imran Khan's sister, Uzma Khan, has approached the Supreme Court seeking his transfer 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 constitute a medical board for Imran Khan's examination, argues that concerns surrounding the PTI founder's health extend beyond the treatment of Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (CRVO) in his right eye.
It states that the underlying cause of the condition is a blood clot that has affected blood flow to the eye and may pose wider health risks.
"In the present case, the concerns regarding Mr. Niazi's health do not end with the proper treatment of his present complaint, i.e., CRVO of his right eye. As submitted, the underlying cause for the said issue is a blood clot, which has affected the flow of blood to the right eye. In medical terms, formation of blood clots in the blood stream of a person can be very dangerous: a clot can travel to the heart, causing heart failure, or to the 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 shifted to a private hospital for detailed examination, treatment and monitoring. A delayed approach to medical facilities in cases of blood clots can be critical as was observed in a report issued by the Human Report Commission of Pakistan in the year 2023, titled "The Ailing Prisoner." Reference may also be made in this regard to a report titled "A Nightmare for Everyone - The Health Crisis in Pakistan's Prisons" published by Human Rights Watch highlighting systemic deficiencies in the provision of timely and specialized medical care to prisoners," says the petition.
The petition further contends that denial of medical facilities to Imran Khan is discriminatory, citing instances in which other political leaders received extensive medical and personal facilities while in custody.
"Reference may be made, in particular, 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 is entitled to obtain the best possible medical treatment within the country."
The plea also argues that the Islamabad High Court judgment failed to properly interpret Rule 795 of the Prison Rules concerning access of relatives to sick prisoners.
"It is submitted with respect that the first sentence of para 14 of the Impugned Judgment, dealing with the question of access of family members, is completely unclear as to its meaning, intent and scope. It is evident that Rules 795 does not simply obligate "prison authorities... to inform the relatives of a convicted prisoner" "when the prisoner develops a seriaus medical condition", as suggested in the Impugned Judgment, but to also put the relatives in a position where they can help and support the prisoner. A rational and purposive reading of Rule 795 reveals, by clear implication, that the relatives of a sick prisoner have the right of access to him and are entitled to ensure that proper treatment and healthcare is being provided to the prisoner. This is possible only if they are associated with the prisoner's treatment and are kept informed about it on a regular, ongoing basis. Otherwise, no fruitful purpose is served by merely intimating them of the sickness: the relatives will know that the prisoner is ill but will be unable to do anything about it."
"In any event, as mentioned above, the Prison Rules only set out the minimum standards and must be read in light of Constitutional requirements. The right of a prisoner to meet his family, especially during times of ill-health, is well recognized."
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 being regularly examined and that his medical condition had improved.
However, it argues that the same official had consistently denied the former premier adequate medical facilities and access to personal physicians, lawyers and family members.
"The animus of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Rawalpindi, as well as other officials, against Mr. Niazi, and the length to which they are willing to go to infringe upon his rights, is obvious from their conduct after the passing 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 empowers only the government to approve such transfers.
"Without prejudice, the fact that the Prison Rules are outdated and insufficient to meet the requirements of the Constitution and require amendments to be brought in 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 past 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 incarcerated individual to be treated at an outside hospital, including by doctors of his choice when need be, is now well recognized."
The plea further maintains that the right to life, dignity and humane treatment includes access to physicians chosen by the patient himself.
"Right to life, dignity and humane treatment includes the right to consult a physician of a citizen's own choice. Given the nature of Mr. Niazi's illness, the State cannot thrust physicians of its own liking upon him, while ignoring his own choice."
"All the more so when none of his family members has been given access either to Mr. Niazi or the doctors who have purportedly treated him. It has not been independently ascertained as to 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. Mr. Niazi and his family have repeatedly complained that his life and health are in danger. Despite all these factors, the continued refusal in letting independent physicians examine Mr. Niazi, and denying access even to his family is clearly unwarranted."
"By refusing to allow his personal physicians access to Mr. Niazi without any cogent reasoning, the Impugned Judgment falls foul of these principles. Instead, the Impugned Judgment has simply directed the constitution of a medical board. The Impugned Judgment gives no reason why Mr. Niazi's personal physicians have not been included in the board or otherwise allowed access to him."
The petition further argues that prisoners remain entirely dependent on the state for their wellbeing and that incarceration cannot strip them of the right to healthcare.
"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 of their needs. By depriving a person of liberty, the State acquires a special level of responsibility and must guarantee and safeguard the person's fundamental rights, including the rights to life and humane treatment."
"The State owes a duty to protect the health of prisoners by providing them, amongst other things, with the required medical care. Under international law, adequate medical care is a minimum and indispensable requirement for the State to be able to ensure the humane treatment of prisoners in its custody. Loss of liberty can never mean loss of the right to health. 'Incarceration should not be allowed to compound the deprivation of liberty with illness and physical and mental distress.'"