Pakistan's Supreme Court postponed hearings on Wednesday, 16 September, concerning the healthcare arrangements and proposed relocation of jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan, founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, to Shifa International Hospital, following a jurisdictional dispute between the Supreme Court and the newly formed Federal Constitutional Court. The petitions, covering Khan's medical care, family visitation rights, and compliance with a prior court directive ordering his relocation to a private facility, were taken up by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Shahid Waheed, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Ishtiaq Ibrahim. According to media reports, the Supreme Court raised concerns about the FCC's directive ordering that the matter be transferred from the apex court and scheduled for adjudication before the constitutional bench. The court adjourned the matter for a period of three weeks, having requested input from Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan on questions relating to its own jurisdiction. The controversy traces back to an interim ruling by the Supreme Court on 18 August, which ordered authorities to transfer Khan from Adiala Jail to Shifa International Hospital in Islamabad for assessment and treatment, while also mandating the establishment of a multidisciplinary medical panel to oversee his care. The temporary ruling was made without affecting the legal positions or arguments available to any of the parties involved. The court ordered the government to transfer Khan to Shifa International Hospital within two days, produce his full medical records, and comply with directives concerning his family visits and communication with his sons. Carrying out that directive proved to be a point of dispute. Officials directed Khan to the state-run Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) for a medical assessment, with security concerns cited as the reason for bypassing Shifa hospital. Physicians from Shifa were among those who conducted Khan's medical evaluation at PIMS, according to media reports. Dr. Uzma Khan, a sibling of Khan, later brought a contempt petition before the Supreme Court, asserting that the August 18 order had not been followed. Contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court took place on 16 September. Dr. Uzma Khan contended that the authorities, upon finding the 18 August order problematic to execute, ought to have sought judicial clarification rather than pursuing an alternative course. The contempt petition was scheduled for hearing on September 16 by the Supreme Court, following the resolution of procedural objections from the registrar's office. On 15 September, the Federal Constitutional Court stepped into related proceedings, altering the legal landscape. Three detainees at Adiala Jail — Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Muhammad Ismail Hussain, and Owais Altaf — had lodged appeals with the FCC requesting access to outside medical care on the same basis as that previously extended to Khan. Following the Islamabad High Court's rejection of their petitions on 31 August, the detainees sought recourse through the FCC. Court records related to Khan's proposed transfer to Shifa — including cases pending before the Supreme Court and High Court — were reportedly requisitioned by the FCC. Drawing on Article 175-E, incorporated into the Constitution via the 27th Amendment, the FCC holds the authority to summon case records and adjudicate matters raising questions of constitutional law. A jurisdictional dispute arose from the FCC's ruling on 15 September, given that Khan's hospital transfer proceedings were already under review by the Supreme Court at that time. The FCC instructed its office to obtain the pertinent documents from the Supreme Court and to address the outstanding issues before it — language that became the focal point of discussion at the 16 September hearing. At the hearing, Justice Shahid Waheed noted that the bench held particular concern over the directive to schedule cases before the FCC, raising the question of whether such an action fell within the constitutional powers granted to that body under Article 175-E. On 16 September, Pakistan's Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan presented the government's constitutional stance to the Supreme Court. The court requested guidance on whether the FCC had the authority to obtain documents from a matter already under its review before proceeding to adjudicate those same cases. The Attorney General contended that each of the two superior courts held constitutionally delineated powers, and that both bodies could not lawfully hold jurisdiction over an identical matter at the same time. The court signalled its intention to review whether the FCC's directive held binding authority over it. The conflict touches on a wider question of constitutional authority governing the interplay between Pakistan's apex court and the FCC. The panel additionally reviewed the extent to which the remaining provisions of the 18 August order had been carried out, covering matters such as Khan's contact with his family and whether he had been allowed to speak with his children. According to an independent broadcaster, the judiciary confirmed that the order dated 18 August remained in force. Officials cited security grounds as the reason Khan was transported to PIMS rather than Shifa International Hospital. Lawyers for Khan contended that the authorities were obligated either to follow the Supreme Court's directive or to approach the Court for guidance before pursuing an alternative course. At the 16 September hearing, neither the contempt allegations nor the jurisdictional dispute between the two courts was resolved. The court adjourned the matter for three weeks, giving the Attorney General time to file arguments on the constitutional questions at issue. The Court requested additional guidance from the Attorney General regarding the appropriate course of action and the degree to which the FCC's ruling had bearing on the proceedings before it, according to broadcast reports. The order dated August 18 continues to stand, while the extent of the FCC's jurisdiction to obtain the Supreme Court's record and advance the associated proceedings has yet to be determined.
