Islamabad: Three inmates incarcerated at Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi have approached the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) to challenge a recent Islamabad High Court (IHC) judgment that denied them medical treatment at private hospitals. The petitioners argue that under Article 25 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of citizens they are entitled to the same medical facilities granted to incarcerated former prime minister and PTI founder Imran Khan.
The legal challenge follows an August 18 ruling by the Supreme Court ordering Mr Khan’s transfer to Shifa International Hospital, a private facility, for medical evaluation. Represented by legal counsel, the three prisoners Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Mohammad Ismail Hussain, and Owais Altaf are appealing the IHC’s August 31 dismissal of their petitions. In addition to medical parity, the appellants are seeking constitutional directives to compel jail authorities to permit WhatsApp voice and video communications with overseas relatives.
Addressing the media following the filing, Advocate Akhtar Cheema representing Muhammad Ilyas Khan emphasised that the petitions seek the strict and non discriminatory implementation of Rule 197 of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978, which governs the transfer of ailing inmates to off site medical facilities. Counsel argued that the state’s restrictive interpretation of "civil hospital" as solely public sector institutions is legally flawed, contending that the designation primarily distinguishes civilian facilities from military medical establishments.
Advocate Cheema highlighted that his client suffers from severe internal bleeding and has been transferred to public hospital emergency departments eight times over the past two months without receiving definitive treatment. The defence argued that where state-run infrastructure is inadequate and an inmate's family is prepared to cover private medical expenses, transferring critically ill prisoners to accredited private facilities is consistent with constitutional rights and judicial precedent.
The petitions directly challenge the IHC’s August 31 dismissal, in which the high court held that imprisonment inherently involves lawful restrictions on personal liberty, ruling that prisoners possess no fundamental right to demand treatment at a private hospital of their choosing or access specific digital communication platforms.
In their submissions to the FCC, the appellants contend that maintaining differential standards of healthcare and communication privileges between high profile inmates and the general prison population violates constitutional non-discrimination mandates. The Federal Constitutional Court is expected to conduct a preliminary hearing on the maintainability of the petitions in the coming days.
