SC Defers Imran Khan Case Amid Friction With Federal Constitutional Court

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has formally deferred its proceedings regarding the hospital transfer and incarceration conditions of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan for three weeks. Citing institutional propriety, the top court chose not to disregard a judicial directive issued by the newly created Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), even as it raised sharp reservations over the mechanics and legal justification behind the FCC's decision to requisition and fix the case before itself.

A three-judge Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, voiced deep concern during Wednesday's hearing over the procedural precedent being set. The bench summoned Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan to explain how the FCC could directly fix cases transferred from the apex court, pointing out that such actions appear to step beyond the statutory boundaries established under the recently enacted 27th Constitutional Amendment.

The court atmosphere in Courtroom No. 5 was noticeably tense, heightened by the initial absence of state legal officers and key officials, including the superintendent of Adiala jail, who already faces contempt proceedings for failing to comply with earlier directives concerning Imran Khan’s visitation rights. The standoff underlines growing operational friction between the traditional judicial hierarchy and the newly carved-out constitutional tribunal, exposing deep administrative ambiguities in Pakistan's legal system.

• Requisition Under Article 175-E: The Federal Constitutional Court invoked Article 175-E(5)—a provision inserted via the 27th Constitutional Amendment—to direct the Supreme Court office to transfer case records pertaining to Imran Khan’s hospital care following petitions from three fellow Adiala jail inmates.
• Challenge to Procedural Scope: Justice Shahid Waheed observed that while Article 175-E empowers the FCC to call for records involving major constitutional questions, the direct fixation of requisitioned Supreme Court cases before the FCC does not fall within the specific ambit of clause 5.
• Three-Week Adjournment: The Supreme Court bench suspended further hearings for three weeks, noting that while both institutions must co-exist within their defined spheres, the court would observe judicial propriety rather than issue conflicting directives.
• Broad Constitutional Questions Framed: The FCC framed four core legal questions focusing on which courts hold jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights, state obligations toward prisoners, and the legal consequences when state functionaries violate fundamental rights under the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978.
• Unprecedented Transfer Protocol: AGP Mansoor Usman Awan acknowledged before the bench that requisitioning case files directly from the Supreme Court represents an unprecedented event in Pakistan's legal history, differing entirely from the routine practice of pulling records from provincial high courts.

The jurisdictional friction between the Supreme Court and the FCC highlights the structural uncertainties introduced by the 27th Constitutional Amendment. While the amendment was designed to establish the FCC as the sole arbiter of major constitutional interpretations, the boundary separating core constitutional questions from standard fundamental rights enforcement remains poorly defined. Justice Waheed noted during the hearing that fundamental rights under Article 10-A (fair trial) are embedded in virtually all civil, criminal, and service matters, cautioning that expansive interpretations by the FCC could inadvertently strip the Supreme Court of its foundational judicial responsibilities.

Furthermore, the standoff creates immediate operational paralysis regarding executive accountability and prison administration. The Supreme Court highlighted that it retains distinct jurisdiction to grant relief to prisoners guided by principles derived from Islamic jurisprudence—a mandate the FCC does not hold. By leaving the execution of its previous August 18 orders in the hands of the Attorney General without clear enforcement mechanisms, the judiciary leaves state officials in a administrative limbo regarding their immediate obligations to high-profile detainees.

The current legal dispute traces back to the Supreme Court's August 18 order, which granted specific relief to Imran Khan regarding medical evaluations, potential hospital transfers, and mandatory access for legal counsel and family members. Persistent non-compliance by prison authorities at Adiala jail subsequently prompted the apex court to initiate contempt notices against key government officials.

The dynamic shifted dramatically on September 15, when three Adiala jail inmates filed pleas seeking relief identical to that granted to the PTI founder. In response, the FCC issued orders directing the Supreme Court registry to hand over the relevant case files so the constitutional court could determine the broader scope of state obligations toward prisoners. This marked the first instance of the newly formed tribunal asserting primary jurisdiction over active Supreme Court proceedings, testing the limits of judicial co-existence under the updated constitutional framework.

“"The friction between the Supreme Court and the Federal Constitutional Court exposes the institutional growing pains of Pakistan's newly restructured judiciary, where the boundaries of fundamental rights jurisdiction remain fiercely contested."”

Over the next three weeks, legal experts and market observers will closely monitor whether the Attorney General’s office can formulate a cohesive legal strategy that harmonizes the jurisdictions of both court systems. The AGP has been tasked with presenting a comprehensive legal framework explaining how case records transferred under Article 175-E are to be processed without undermining the Supreme Court's existing orders or its authority over fundamental rights enforcement.

In the interim, the physical conditions of Imran Khan's detention and his access to medical facilities remain governed by the Supreme Court’s August 18 directive, which the bench confirmed remains legally active. However, with state officials delaying implementation and legal counsel insisting on clear interpretations, the upcoming FCC hearings on prisoner rights will serve as a definitive litmus test for whether the new constitutional structure clarifies state accountability or plunges Pakistan's judicial process into further institutional deadlock.