ISLAMABAD(National Times)- The PTI on Tuesday resubmitted a contempt of court petition by PTI founder Imran Khan’s sister to the Supreme Court (SC) against the alleged violation of its August 18 order for the ex-premier’s transfer to a private hospital.
Later, Imran’s sister Uzma Khan also filed an application for the early hearing of the contempt petition.
The contempt plea was re-submitted shortly after the SC returned it after raising certain objections.
PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan said that the SC registrar had informed him that the petition was being returned, with one of the objections being that the list of charges levelled against the respondents had not been dispatched. He had also said that the PTI was going to resubmit the petition after removing the objections raised.
Last week, Imran’s sister Uzma Khan had filed a petition before the SC against authorities for violating the court’s Aug 18 order. In its order, the court had ordered the government to shift Imran to Shifa International Hospital, a private facility, within two days for examination and treatment by a multidisciplinary medical board.
However, the government instead took the PTI founder to Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (Pims), a government hospital, for a check-up and then subsequently transported back to prison. At the time, Information Minister Attaullah Tarar had blamed “the security situation created by PTI workers on the way to and outside” the hospital for the diversion.
In her petition, Uzma — who was present for the check-up — had named Islamabad Chief Commissioner (retired) Lieutenant Sohail Ashraf, Interior Secretary Ahmed Raza Sarwar, Punjab Inspector General Prisons Mian Salik Jalal, Adiala Jail Superintendent Sajid Baig, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar and Information Minister Attaullah Tarar as respondents.
She had alleged that the respondents had committed wilful, deliberate and contumacious disobedience and violation of the order. She had also requested the apex court to depute an officer or appoint a local commission to ensure that Imran was immediately shifted to the private hospital in accordance with its earlier directions.
At the same time, the Islamabad chief commissioner had also approached the SC, seeking an early hearing of his review petition, in which the legality of the Aug 18 order was questioned.
On Monday, Gohar had met the SC registrar and was assured that a bench would be constituted soon to proceed with the contempt of court petition.
Responding to a question, he had also brushed aside the impression of any deal with the government, saying that the PTI founder did not make deals, otherwise he would not have spent three years in prison.
Early hearing plea
In her plea for an early hearing, Uzma highlighted that the matter at hand concerned the life, health, dignity and physical well-being of Imran, whose health was “deteriorating and whose life is stated to be in jeopardy”.
“Every further delay may cause serious and irreparable harm,” the application said.
The application stated that the Aug 18 court order was required to be obeyed forthwith and in letter and spirit.
“The filing or pendency of any review petition on part of the chief commissioner does not, by itself, suspend or dilute the binding force of the order unless its operation is expressly stayed by the Supreme Court,” the petition said.
It added that respondents named in the contempt plea were legally required to act strictly in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court.
“If any genuine clarification or modification was considered necessary, the proper course was to approach the Supreme Court, rather than to depart from or substitute its express directions,” it argued.
The applicant also expressed regret that “disobedience” by the respondents was “continuing in nature” and emphasised that this required “immediate judicial consideration so that the authority of the Supreme Court was upheld and its directions concerning the life and health of the prisoner were implemented without further loss of time”.
“The applicant has a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience lies entirely in favour of early fixation,” the application said, arguing that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the matter was heard at the earliest.
However, it added, a delay may cause “irreparable loss and injury”.
The application also cited media reports and recalled that the chief commissioner, in his review petition, had also prayed for an early hearing of his plea.
