ISLAMABAD (Nazrana Times): Pakistan’s Supreme Court on Wednesday raised important constitutional questions over whether the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) can summon the record of a case already pending before the Supreme Court, as the two judicial forums consider proceedings linked to former prime minister Imran Khan’s proposed transfer from Adiala Jail to Shifa International Hospital.
A three-member Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Shahid Waheed, and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, took up petitions concerning Khan’s medical treatment and the implementation of earlier court directions.
During the hearing, Justice Waheed sought assistance from Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan on the constitutional relationship between the Supreme Court and the FCC.
The bench questioned whether an order passed by the Federal Constitutional Court seeking the record of proceedings pending before the Supreme Court was binding on the apex court. It also asked under which constitutional provision the FCC could call for such a record and direct that the related cases be placed before it.
The issue emerged after the FCC sought records of proceedings concerning Khan’s proposed transfer to Shifa International Hospital while hearing appeals filed by other Adiala Jail prisoners seeking treatment at private hospitals.
The Attorney General referred to Article 175-E of the Constitution, which gives the FCC authority, in specified circumstances, to call for the record of a pending case when it considers that the matter involves a substantial question of law concerning interpretation of the Constitution.
The scope of that constitutional power — particularly whether and how it applies to proceedings already pending before the Supreme Court — became a central issue during Wednesday’s hearing.
Justice Waheed also raised questions over the FCC’s consideration of which judicial forum has jurisdiction in matters involving fundamental rights. He observed that questions relating to fundamental rights can arise in different kinds of proceedings, including criminal cases involving the constitutional right to a fair trial.
The Supreme Court did not give a final determination on the jurisdictional issue and instead sought further assistance from the Attorney General.
The bench stressed that its questions should be understood in the context of clarifying the constitutional position and referred to the importance of mutual respect between the country’s superior judicial forums.

August 18 Order Remains in Force

The hearing also covered implementation of the Supreme Court’s August 18 order concerning Imran Khan’s medical treatment and contact with his family.
The Attorney General told the court that the August 18 order remained in force and had not been suspended or set aside by a subsequent order.
Under that order, authorities had been directed to transfer Khan from Adiala Jail to Shifa International Hospital for medical examination and treatment. Directions concerning meetings and communication with members of his family were also part of the proceedings.
The bench questioned the absence of Adiala Jail officials who had been required to appear before the court. Justice Waheed asked whether warrants should be issued over the non-appearance of the jail superintendent.
The Attorney General acknowledged that the officials should have appeared and requested that they be given another opportunity.
The court also sought information regarding implementation of its directions concerning Khan’s meetings and telephone contact with family members.

Proceedings Adjourned for Three Weeks

After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court accepted the Attorney General’s request for additional time to assist the bench on the constitutional questions and deferred further proceedings for three weeks.
No final ruling was issued on Wednesday regarding the respective jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and Federal Constitutional Court.
The proceedings therefore leave an important constitutional question to be examined further: how Article 175-E applies when the Federal Constitutional Court seeks the record of a matter already pending before the Supreme Court, and what legal consequences follow from such an order.