The Supreme Court’s intervention on Tuesday, nearly three months after former prime minister Imran Khan sought enforcement of his rights as a prisoner, marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the treatment of political leaders in custody. Acting on recent medical reports that indicated a troubling decline in Mr Khan’s health, the court directed authorities to transfer him to Islamabad’s Shifa International Hospital for a comprehensive medical examination. The process is to be conducted under the supervision of one of his sisters, his personal physician, and a team of specialists.
In its ruling, the apex court observed that it was “mindful of the constitutional and legal obligation of the state, and consequently of the Supreme Court, to safeguard the life, health, dignity and security of persons in custody.” This statement underscores the principle that the state bears responsibility for the welfare of all individuals under its care, regardless of political affiliation. The court also ordered jail authorities to facilitate weekly meetings between Mr Khan and his family, as well as telephonic conversations with his sons. Shortly after the ruling, one of his sisters was able to meet him in prison, offering a measure of relief to his family.
Reports suggest that Mr Khan has been suffering from various ailments for months, yet prison officials have consistently denied that he was unwell. At times, they even resisted efforts to allow him access to physicians of his own choosing. Such treatment is unbecoming of a state that claims adherence to constitutional protections and democratic norms. The denial of basic medical care to a former prime minister reflects poorly on the institutions responsible for upholding justice and human dignity.
History shows that Mr Khan is not alone in facing such neglect. Senior leaders of the PML‑N and PPP have endured similar, if not worse, treatment during their incarcerations. It would have reflected well on them had they intervened to ensure that political rivals were not subjected to such indignities during their own tenures in power. Unfortunately, the cycle of mistreatment has persisted across governments, eroding public trust in the fairness of the system.
It is also important to note that Mr Khan is not the only political figure currently in prison. Several others, including women, remain behind bars, suffering from poor health or the challenges of old age. They, too, deserve the state’s sympathy and protection. The principle of safeguarding dignity and health must apply universally, not selectively.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a reminder that constitutional obligations cannot be ignored. Relief for Mr Khan is overdue, but it should also serve as a precedent for humane treatment of all prisoners, particularly political leaders. The credibility of the state depends on its ability to uphold justice impartially and ensure that no citizen, regardless of status, is denied basic rights while in custody.
Also Read: Wheat market transition
Today's E-Paper