Government’s Review Petition After Court Ruling Is an Attempt to Take Powers Into Its Own Hands: Asma Shirazi

ISLAMABAD: Senior journalist and news anchor Asma Shirazi has criticized the government’s review petition against the Supreme Court’s decision concerning the medical treatment of PTI founder Imran Khan, describing it as an attempt to take powers into its own hands.

In a post on X, Asma Shirazi said being a prisoner did not mean that an individual was deprived of fundamental rights. She argued that the government’s review petition following the court’s decision appeared to be an attempt to retain control over decisions regarding the hospital and the duration of the prisoner’s stay there.

She stressed that Imran Khan’s health should not be compromised amid the ongoing developments.

In another post, Shirazi said politics was a matter of possibilities and that Pakistani political figures continued to move within those possibilities. She observed that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was currently moving along that political path.

She further remarked that Imran Khan’s period of suffering had lasted for three years, while relief came within hours. According to Shirazi, the development was neither the result of a protest nor a revolution, but rather the outcome of “negotiations” that continued behind the scenes.

Meanwhile, Islamabad Chief Commissioner has filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s order directing the transfer of Imran Khan to Shifa International Hospital.

In the petition, the Chief Commissioner argued that the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978 contain a clear procedure for transferring a prisoner to a hospital, but the Supreme Court’s decision issued the previous day had overlooked those rules.

The petition stated that issuing an order contrary to Rule 197 of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978 constituted a significant legal error on the record.

It further argued that Article 10-A of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, whereas the order in the case was issued without notices being served on the relevant parties.

The review petition maintained that the court had deferred a serious legal question concerning the maintainability of the petition and had issued a unilateral interim order.

It also argued that relief of a final nature could not be granted at the interim stage and requested the Supreme Court to review its decision.