The Islamabad High Court on Tuesday disposed of two petitions challenging the alleged solitary confinement of PTI founder Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi, declaring the petitions maintainable and directing Adiala jail authorities to ensure neither prisoner is kept in isolation.
Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro announced the verdict, reserved since August 6, on writ petitions filed by Imran Khan’s sister Aleema Khanum and Bushra Bibi’s daughter Mubashra Khawar Maneka. The court ruled the petitions maintainable under principles established in the Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Chief of Army Staff and Begum Shamim Afridi v. Province of Punjab cases, rejecting the government’s objections on locus standi. It observed that a prisoner’s rights to life, dignity, and humane treatment are not extinguished at the prison gate, and that close relatives with a direct interest in an inmate’s welfare cannot be treated as strangers to the case.
According to the court order, Imran Khan is currently serving sentences in the Al-Qadir Trust and Toshakhana (Bulgari set) cases, while his sentences in two other cases, Toshakhana (ECP) and Toshakhana (Graff set), remain suspended pending criminal appeals.
Conflicting Accounts
Barrister Salman Safdar, representing the petitioners, alleged Imran Khan was being held in solitary confinement for roughly 22 hours a day, while Bushra Bibi was kept in complete isolation around the clock. He cited a report from a Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae, submitted in a separate criminal petition, claiming the former prime minister had lost 85 percent of vision in his right eye while being held in isolation.
Government and jail authorities consistently denied the solitary confinement allegations. NAB’s senior special prosecutor, the ICT advocate general, and the additional attorney general argued that solitary confinement was no longer practised at Adiala jail, maintaining that Imran Khan was housed separately due to security concerns tied to his political profile and former premiership, and was receiving facilities beyond his entitled B-class status.
Adiala jail Superintendent Sajid Baig submitted a report stating Imran Khan was not confined to a single cell, but had access to a compound of seven cells where he could move during the day. The report said he regularly interacted with prison officers, staff, and a full-time convicted labourer, received medical visits, had access to natural light and fresh air from dawn to dusk, and was permitted weekly meetings with his wife on Tuesdays.
The court, however, noted that access to the general prison population remained substantially restricted, meaningfully limiting his social interaction.
Medical Evidence
Justice Soomro relied heavily on medical records submitted by the jail authorities themselves. A PIMS consultant cardiologist’s August 1 assessment noted complaints of fluctuating blood pressure, palpitations, headaches, and restlessness, linking the stress to infrequent meetings with family and social contacts, as well as the lack of newspapers and television, and specifically recommended more frequent meetings and reading material to ease mental stress.
A subsequent medical board of PIMS specialists, on August 10, again recorded anxiety and recommended a daily one-hour walk, some relaxation of prison conditions, access to magazines, newspapers, television and books, and more frequent interaction with immediate family and spouse. The court found this record prima facie recognised the adverse impact of restricted social and familial interaction on the prisoner’s psychological and physical wellbeing.
Court’s Directives
The IHC issued several directives to the Adiala jail superintendent: that Bushra Bibi not be held in solitary confinement; that the couple be permitted to meet under prison rules; that family visits be allowed; and that arrangements be made for phone calls between Imran Khan and his sons, though the court said such calls could be withdrawn if recordings were used for political purposes.
The superintendent was ordered to provide daily newspapers and books, subject only to routine security screening, with the court specifying that no book should be withheld solely due to its intellectual, religious, or academic subject matter unless legally prohibited. The prisoner is to be given at least one hour daily for walking and exercise, and a functional television may be provided in line with prison rules and the medical board’s recommendation.
Justice Soomro observed that security requirements may regulate such interaction, but cannot extinguish it altogether, and that security considerations cannot serve as blanket justification for complete deprivation of human association.
The court noted that after the petitions had been reserved, the Supreme Court had on August 18 issued its own directives for shifting Imran Khan to Shifa International Hospital, forming a medical board, producing his complete medical record, and granting family access. The IHC said judicial propriety required it to avoid issuing overlapping directives on medical treatment, and that its orders would remain subject to any directive from the Supreme Court or a larger IHC bench handling the wider matter.
The Adiala superintendent was directed to submit a compliance report to the court through the deputy registrar judicial for review in chambers within 15 days of receiving the order.
