The federal government filed a review petition on Wednesday against the Supreme Court’s order to move Imran Khan to Islamabad’s Shifa International Hospital. The former prime minister remains in custody. The court had ordered his transfer for examination by a multidisciplinary medical board. The government submitted its petition through the Islamabad chief commissioner, one day after the SC’s ruling.
Key Highlights
- Government files review petition against SC order to move Imran Khan to Shifa Hospital
- Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar had signaled the challenge hours after the ruling
- Petition argues the SC order exceeded its jurisdiction
- Government cites Rule 197 of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978
Pakistan’s government will challenge the Supreme Court’s order to move jailed former prime minister Imran Khan to a private hospital for medical checks.
The ruling “does not fall within the four corners of the law”, says Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tararhttps://t.co/9200ECGFoD pic.twitter.com/80lHbgbkpa
— AFP News Agency (@AFP) August 19, 2026
Government Cites Prison Rules, Says Order Overlooked Key Provision
Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar spoke out shortly after the Supreme Court issued its interim order. He said the government planned to approach the court to seek changes to the ruling. He pointed to prison rules that require a prisoner’s treatment to happen at a government facility first. Under those rules, a transfer to a private hospital is only allowed if a medical board determines the government facility cannot provide the needed care.
The government’s petition, filed in court today, argues that the Supreme Court’s interim order went beyond its jurisdiction. A copy reviewed by Dawn states that the order should therefore be reviewed. The petition also says the order contains legal errors that are visible on the face of the record.
The petition points specifically to Rule 197 of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978. This rule governs how prisoners get transferred to civil hospitals in cases of serious illness. According to the petition, the court did not take this rule into account when issuing its order. That oversight, the petition argues, created an error clear enough to warrant a review. It states that had the court considered Rule 197, it could not have issued the order as written.
