IHC, İmran Han ve Bushra Bibi’nin hücre hapsi dilekçelerinin kabul edilebilirliğine ilişkin kararını saklı tuttu

IHC reserves verdict on maintainability of petitions against Imran, Bushra’s alleged solitary confinement

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday reserved its verdict on the maintainability of petitions challenging the alleged solitary confinement of the jailed PTI founder Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi. A day earlier, the IHC removed the registrar office’s (RO) objections to petitions challenging the alleged solitary confinement and had directed that both petitions be numbered while deferring the question of maintainability to the judicial side. The court had adjourned the proceedings till Tuesday (today). As the hearing resumed on Tuesday, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro reserved the order after hearing detailed arguments from counsel for the petitioners and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). Barrister Salman Safdar, representing the petitioners, submitted that he would first assist the court on the petition filed by Bushra Bibi’s daughter, Mubashara Khawar Maneka. Noting that he also had to appear before a division bench later in the day, he sought to conclude his submissions expeditiously. Justice Soomro remarked with a smile: “We have also sacrificed our tea.” The petitions were filed by Aleema Khan on behalf of the PTI founder and by Mubashara on behalf of Bushra Bibi. Barrister Safdar argued that both the Lahore High Court (LHC) and the IHC had previously relied on the Begum Shamim Afridi case while dealing with issues relating to solitary confinement. Referring to objections raised by the NAB prosecutor during proceedings in the £190 million case appeals, the counsel denied having previously sought any relief specifically regarding solitary confinement. He produced the record of a miscellaneous application filed in those appeals and argued that the application merely sought signatures on a power of attorney. “There is no mention of solitary confinement in that application or in the written order passed that day,” he contended, adding that solitary confinement had only been referred to in the grounds of the application as background because applications seeking suspension of sentence were pending at the time. Barrister Safdar further argued that Bushra’s case was unprecedented, describing it as the first instance in Pakistan where a female prisoner was allegedly being held in prolonged solitary confinement. He said that after her conviction, she had initially been shifted to Bani Gala and confined to a room, adding that no trial or remand proceedings were currently pending against her. When Justice Soomro asked whether he had recently met his clients, the counsel replied that he had met the PTI founder during a court-authorised visit but had not been allowed to meet Bushra Bibi for the past seven months. Citing an earlier judgment of Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb concerning Bushra Bibi, Barrister Safdar argued that despite the passage of time, the situation had remained unchanged. He also referred to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules), submitting that the PTI founder, aged 74, had lost vision in one eye, had been taken to hospital five times and was allegedly being kept in solitary confinement for 22 hours a day without access to newspapers, television or regular meetings. He further alleged that Bushra Bibi had been confined alone for 24 hours a day, despite both husband and wife having undergone eye surgeries. Following these submissions, NAB prosecutor Rafay Maqsood sought to address the maintainability of the petitions. Arguing that the petitions were not maintainable, he contended that the earlier judgment of Justice Aurangzeb was distinguishable, as it had been filed by Bushra Bibi herself, whereas the present petitions had been instituted by her daughter and the PTI founder’s sister. He further argued that the Begum Shamim Afridi case involved detainees who had not been convicted, whereas the present matter concerned convicted prisoners serving sentences in Adiala Jail in a financial corruption case. He also referred to the Nusrat Bhutto case, submitting that it arose under martial law and involved constitutional questions under Article 184(3), making it inapplicable to the present proceedings. The prosecutor maintained that neither Aleema nor Mubashara qualified as aggrieved persons and therefore lacked locus standi to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the court. Responding to a query from the bench, the NAB prosecutor categorically denied that either prisoner was being held in solitary confinement. “There is no solitary confinement, absolutely not,” he told the court, adding that the petitioners had not first approached the jail authorities or exhausted alternative remedies available under the prison rules before invoking Article 199 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the prison rules adequately govern the treatment of convicted prisoners and argued that the allegations were unsupported by any independent material. According to him, regular meetings had continued over the past year, and the petitioners were attempting to obtain indirectly the relief that had already been declined in other proceedings. In rebuttal, Barrister Safdar argued that the NAB prosecutor was defending the jail authorities rather than confining his submissions to NAB’s role. He maintained that the court had previously issued observations concerning Bushra’s confinement and insisted that the precedents cited by the prosecution did not diminish the court’s constitutional jurisdiction to examine allegations of unlawful solitary confinement. After hearing both sides, Justice Soomro reserved the verdict on the admissibility of the petitions. In her plea filed last week, Aleema had described her brother’s detention conditions as unlawful and inhumane. According to the petition, during a lawyers’ meeting held on April 8, it emerged that Imran had been kept in solitary confinement for 22 hours a day, while his wife, Bushra, was allegedly confined in isolation for 24 hours a day. Mubashara’s petition contended her mother was being unlawfully kept in solitary confinement and requested the court to declare it illegal and set it aside. Imran — imprisoned since Aug 5, 2023 — is serving a 14-year sentence at Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail in the £190m case, also known as the Al-Qadir Trust case. An accountability court in Islamabad had sentenced Imran and Bushra to 14 and seven years in prison, respectively, on Jan 17, 2025, in the case. Subsequently, both had challenged their convictions before the IHC. The case alleges that the couple obtained billions of rupees and land worth hundreds of kanals from Bahria Town Ltd to legalise Rs50 billion identified and returned to the country by the United Kingdom during the PTI government.