Imran’s sister urges Supreme Court to order his hospitalisation

ISLAMABAD: Dr Uzma Khan, the sister of ex-premier Imran Khan, on Monday challenged before the Supreme Court the Islamabad High Court ruling to refuse to shift him to Shifa International Hospital, allow access to his personal physicians, family and counsel, and provide medical details to the family.

Filed through senior counsel Uzair Karamat Bhandari, the petition explained the applicant was not a party to the proceedings before the IHC but was aggrieved by the impugned judgement. In this regard, it referred to the SC decision in H.M. Saya’s case that allowed a person adversely affected by a decree or order to challenge the same before SC.

The petition stated Imran and his wife were currently incarcerated at Adiala jail, while his two sons lived abroad. Being his sister and a doctor by qualification, the applicant had natural love and affection for her brother and was seriously concerned about his health and well-being, which, it alleged, were being jeopardised by the official acts and omissions of the respondents.

It maintained that the appellant was Imran’s closest relative in Pakistan and therefore had the legal standing to file the appeal.

The petition stated that jail authorities had obstinately refused to obtain a vakalatnama in favour of the advocate-on-record signed by Mr Niazi, rendering him unable, so far, to file a petition against the impugned judgement. If the high court judgement was not set aside, it could directly and adversely affect the applicant’s case, it argued, adding that the applicant was therefore aggrieved by, and had locus standi to challenge, the impugned judgement.

The SC was requested to suspend the operation of the IHC ruling during the pendency of the petition and order an immediate medical examination of Imran by physicians of his choice, including Khurram Mirza, Asim Yusuf, Faisal Sultan and Samina Niazi.

It also sought directions allowing Imran access to his physicians, family members and counsel.

The petition contended that the IHC’s denial directly undermined and violated the applicant’s fundamental right to family life under Article 9 of the Constitution.

Published in Dawn, May 12th, 2026