What began as a straightforward Supreme Court directive to transfer former prime minister Imran Khan to a hospital for medical tests and treatment has unexpectedly evolved into a constitutional confrontation. The government’s disregard for the order, consistent with its tendency to sidestep judicial rulings, opened the door for further complications. Soon after, three other inmates at Adiala Jail petitioned for similar medical relief, and the Federal Constitutional Court assumed jurisdiction over Khan’s case as well. This development has unsettled the Supreme Court, which now finds itself in a jurisdictional overlap with the FCC.
The FCC’s intervention appears to challenge a ruling issued earlier by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, who had described the Supreme Court and FCC as “coordinate courts exercising clearly demarcated jurisdictions over distinct matters.” Yet the current situation highlights the uncertainty created by the 27th Amendment, which restructured constitutional jurisdiction by establishing the FCC and assigning it authority over fundamental rights and major constitutional questions. Acting under this mandate, the FCC summoned complete records of Khan’s hospitalisation case from the Supreme Court, framing the issue as one of constitutional entitlement for prisoners.
The FCC then went further, fixing the case before itself. The Supreme Court, however, has responded with restraint. The three-member bench hearing the matter noted that the FCC’s order raised “considerable legal and constitutional significance” and adjourned proceedings for three weeks, seeking the attorney general’s opinion on whether the FCC’s directive is binding on the SC. In the meantime, Khan’s hospitalisation has become secondary to the larger institutional question of jurisdiction.
This crisis underscores the ambiguity of the 27th Amendment. The amendment did not clarify what happens when a constitutional question arises in an ongoing Supreme Court case, particularly when such cases involve statutes like the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Contempt of Court Ordinance, which traditionally fall within the SC’s remit. The lack of clarity has now produced a collision between two apex judicial forums, each uncertain of its boundaries.
It is striking that such a dispute has erupted over what should have been a routine matter: transferring an ailing prisoner to a hospital for medical care. Instead, the episode has exposed the fragility of the judicial framework created by the amendment. The spectacle of two top courts contesting jurisdiction over a prisoner’s medical treatment does little to inspire confidence in the system.
The government’s disregard for judicial orders has contributed to this crisis, but the deeper fault lies in the haste with which the 27th Amendment was enacted. Without clear demarcation of authority, jurisdictional overlaps were inevitable. What should have been a minor administrative matter has now become a test of constitutional boundaries, revealing the instability of the structures underpinning the current dispensation.