“The order of the SC was clear, unequivocal and binding yet the executive has chosen to disregard it and has acted in direct defiance of the court’s directions and violated the same,” said a statement issued by the members.
The signatories included PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja, Abid Shahid Zuberi, Muhammad Maqsood Buttar, Shafqat Mehmood Chauhan, Munir Ahmed Kakar, Abdul Sattar Khan, Salahuddin Ahmed and Qazi Muhammad Arshad.
“The executive has no authority to defy the directions and orders of the SC,” the statement said.
“What has occurred was a serious assault on the independence, authority and dignity of the judiciary. It has undermined the rule of law and strikes at the very foundation of constitutional governance,” it added.
“If the executive can simply disregard an order of the SC, then the constitutional separation of powers is rendered meaningless,” the statement further said.
The PBC members also wrote in their letter that the government’s actions were “a direct threat to the fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan”.
“Judicial orders are the principal constitutional safeguard against arbitrary State action. When those orders are disregarded, the authority of the Court, rule of law and the Constitution are all undermined,” the statement said.
“The rights of every citizen are placed at risk of arbitrary and illegal actions of the state,” it added.
The statement further said that the SC had addressed the consequences of non-compliance in paragraph 14 of its Aug 18 order, adding that the government was “fully aware of the binding nature of the directions and the consequences that follow from their disobedience”.
The PBC members further clarified that the filing of a review petition did not suspend the order, nor would it authorise the government to disregard the order.
In their statement, the members demanded that those responsible for these violations should be identified and that legal proceedings be undertaken against those individuals.
“The 26th and 27th Constitutional Amendments, which have already eroded the supremacy of rule of law, judiciary and the Constitution, do not and cannot provide constitutional cover for disobedience of a subsisting order of the SC,” they asserted.
The 26th Constitutional Amendment had overhauled the country’s judicial system, while the 27th had altered Pakistan’s higher defence architecture.
“No constitutional amendment, political consideration or executive decision can place the government above a binding judicial command. The Constitution does not permit the executive to decide for itself which judicial orders it will follow,” the statement said.
The members also noted that it was “particularly disturbing” that Imran’s treatment “stands in stark contrast to the treatment previously afforded to former prime ministers and other political leaders facing criminal convictions”.
In an apparent reference to ex-premier Nawaz Sharif, they said that a former political leader, despite being convicted, “was permitted to travel abroad for medical treatment pursuant to court order and an undertaking executed on Rs50 stamp paper”.
“The question that therefore arises is whether the constitutional protection of life, health, dignity and access to medical treatment is to be applied selectively depending upon the political circumstances of the individual concerned,” the statement said.
Meanwhile, Vice Chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) Pir Muhammad Masood Chistie clarified that a statement issued by eight of the council’s 23 members represented the views of those individual members and could not be treated as the collective position of the PBC.
“In an institution governed by democratic principles, the minority cannot dictate the position of the majority,” the statement said.
The PBC is an institution of the legal fraternity and must remain above political interests and personal agendas, it said, adding that neither the Bar Council nor the superior judiciary should be politicised or used for ulterior motives.
The PBC strongly condemned statements issued by the eight members, as well as a statement issued by the Lahore High Court Bar Association, and categorically distanced itself from them.
“These statements do not reflect the collective views, position or policy of the legal fraternity or the institution,” the statement said.
The PBC, being the apex body of lawyers in Pakistan, firmly believes that bar representatives must not use bar platforms for their personal political motives, the statement added.
The council believes in the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, supremacy of the Constitution and the sanctity of constitutional institutions. All members are expected to respect these fundamental principles and uphold the dignity and institutional independence of the Pakistan Bar Council, the statement said.
On Tuesday, the SC had ordered the government to shift Imran to Shifa International Hospital within two days for examination and treatment by a multidisciplinary medical board.
A three-member bench headed by Justice Shahid Waheed and comprising Justices Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Ishtiaq Ibrahim issued the interim directions on petitions seeking Imran’s hospitalisation, access to personal physicians and family members and provision of his medical record to his family.
The court had also ordered that Dr Uzma Khan and Dr Faisal Sultan — Imran Khan’s personal physician — be present during the medical check-up by a medical board.
At the same time, Imran’s family members, PTI members and lawyers associated with him were barred from disclosing his health condition or medical reports to the media or public until the next hearing.
The next day, the government had filed a review plea against the court’s order to shift Imran to the private hospital, arguing that the directive was discriminatory and issued in violation of prison rules and principles of natural justice.
However, the SC had returned the plea on Thursday with the objection that the contents of the affidavit and facts, along with the review petition filed under Article 188 of the Constitution, had not been properly drawn up and that one of the paper books of was not in order.
The same night, elaborate arrangements were put in place in and around Shifa International Hospital, and all signs pointed to the PTI founder being brought there, in compliance with SC order.However, it became clear on Friday morning that Imran had been taken to Pims for a check-up and then subsequently transported back to prison.
Information Minister Attaullah Tarar blamed “the security situation created by PTI workers on the way to and outside Al Shifa Hospital” for the diversion.In a post on X, he said, “In the light of the SC’s order, the prisoner was taken to the hospital under appropriate security arrangements during the night between August 20 and 21.
“A team of qualified doctors, including an ophthalmologist, a cardiologist, and a physician, conducted a detailed examination of him and declared him medically fit,” he said.
Later, the Pims administration said that two specialists from Shifa International Hospital participated in Imran’s eye assessment, while other examinations were carried out by the concerned Pims specialists.
Imran has been taken to Pims multiple times after his eye ailment — right central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) — came to light in late January.“The clinical input arising from the ophthalmological assessment was taken into account alongside findings of the investigations conducted at Pims,” the statement said.
Meanwhile, the government on Thursday filed a fresh review petition against the SC’s Aug 18 order. The Islamabad chief commissioner again filed the plea, saying that his office had a direct, substantial and legally protected interest in the matter and that the Aug 18 order adversely affected its constitutional authority.