Supreme Court Says Constitutional Court to Interpret Constitution, Other Matters Remain With SC
ISLAMABAD:** The Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed during the hearing of a case concerning the proposed transfer of PTI founder Imran Khan to hospital that the Federal Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction is limited to constitutional interpretation, while other matters remain within the Supreme Court’s domain.
The three-member bench, headed by Justice Shahid Waheed and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, resumed hearing of the case on Wednesday. The hearing came a day after the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) ordered the Supreme Court to provide the record of cases concerning Imran Khan’s proposed transfer to Shifa International Hospital.
At the outset, Justice Shahid Waheed summoned Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan to appear before the court. Additional Attorney General Rana Asad informed the bench that the FCC had taken up the matter and issued an order seeking the relevant record from the Supreme Court.
Justice Waheed directed the Additional Attorney General to read out the FCC order. After being informed that the Attorney General was present in his office, the bench summoned him to the courtroom and briefly adjourned the proceedings.
When the hearing resumed, Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan said he would not comment on the constitutional questions before the FCC and would assist the Supreme Court only on the issue of jurisdiction, describing the matter as unprecedented.
Justice Shahid Waheed observed that there was nothing above the Constitution, law and the Quran in the country. He questioned whether the FCC would be bound by Supreme Court decisions made in light of the Quran and Sunnah.
The Attorney General referred to Article 189 regarding the application of judicial decisions. Justice Waheed remarked that the FCC could not interfere in matters concerning the Quran and Sunnah and said that the Constitutional Court could interpret the Constitution, while matters other than constitutional interpretation remained with the Supreme Court.
The Attorney General argued that the Supreme Court’s Shariat Bench could interpret the Quran and Sunnah. Justice Waheed then questioned whether the Supreme Court should dismiss the petitions or stop hearing them and asked whether the court was bound by the FCC’s order.
The Attorney General said it needed to be determined to what extent the FCC could summon records from other courts and suggested that it would be appropriate for the Supreme Court to defer the hearing.
### Officials Summoned Over Non-Compliance
Justice Waheed also expressed concern that officials from Adiala Jail had been summoned to appear personally before the court but none had appeared.
He said the absence of government officials amounted to non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s order and indicated a serious lack of coordination and communication.
The Attorney General acknowledged that the officials should have appeared and requested that they be given another opportunity. When Justice Waheed asked whether warrants should be issued for the jail superintendent, the Attorney General requested that the court give the officials another chance.
The court also discussed the government’s review petition, in which it had stated that treatment at a private hospital was not possible. Justice Waheed observed that the Supreme Court’s previous order had not been implemented as directed, while the Attorney General said the relevant record had been provided to the court.
The Supreme Court subsequently adjourned the hearing for three weeks.
### FCC Had Sought Records of Imran Khan Case
A day earlier, the Federal Constitutional Court had summoned the complete records of cases pending before the Supreme Court concerning Imran Khan’s transfer to Shifa International Hospital, as well as similar cases pending before high courts.
The FCC bench, headed by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, was hearing petitions by three Adiala Jail inmates seeking treatment at private hospitals on grounds similar to those cited in the August 18 Supreme Court order concerning Imran Khan.
The FCC raised several constitutional questions, including which courts have jurisdiction over enforcement of prisoners’ fundamental rights, what rights prisoners are guaranteed under the Constitution and prison rules, the scope of the state’s obligations toward prisoners, and the legal consequences if the state fails to provide those rights.
The FCC invoked Article 175-E in seeking the records, while the Attorney General argued before the court that, following the 27th Constitutional Amendment, questions involving constitutional interpretation and constitutional rights fall within the FCC’s jurisdiction.
### Supreme Court’s August 18 Order
On August 18, the Supreme Court had directed authorities to transfer Imran Khan from Adiala Jail to Shifa International Hospital in Islamabad for medical examination and treatment by a specialised medical board.
However, the former prime minister was subsequently taken to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) instead. The government cited security concerns for the decision, while a contempt petition was later filed by Imran Khan’s sister, Dr Uzma Khan, alleging that the Supreme Court’s directive had not been followed.
The latest proceedings have therefore brought the question of jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and the newly established Federal Constitutional Court to the forefront, alongside the pending dispute over the implementation of the August 18 hospital-transfer order.
