اسلام آباد (بيورو) سپريم ڪورٽ پي ٽي آءِ جي باني عمران خان تائين رسائي نه ڏيڻ واري ڪيس ۾ اڊيالا جيل جي سپرنٽينڊنٽ، پنجاب جي گهرو سيڪريٽري، اسلام آباد جي ايڊووڪيٽ جنرل ۽ پنجاب جي ايڊووڪيٽ جنرل کي ٽن هفتن ۾ جواب ڏيڻ جو حڪم ڏئي ڇڏيو.
پي ٽي آءِ جي سيڪريٽري جنرل سلمان اڪرم راجا پاران اسلام آباد هاءِ ڪورٽ (آءِ ايڇ سي) جي 23 آڪٽوبر 2025 تي سندس توهين عدالت واري درخواست رد ڪرڻ کي چيلينج ڪندي درخواست داخل ڪئي وئي، جنهن ۾ اڊيالا جيل ۾ عمران جي قانوني ٽيم جي دوري جي حقن بابت عدالت جي هدايتن تي عمل ڪرائڻ جو مطالبو ڪيو ويو.
The directives were issued today by a three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
During the hearing, Justice Mazhar said the bench would not be available next week, but the appeal would be scheduled for hearing, directing that appeals be fixed within three weeks.
عدالت اهو به حڪم ڏنو ته 23 آڪٽوبر 2025 جو آءِ جي سنڌ هاءِ ڪورٽ جو حڪم ٻڌڻي دوران رڪارڊ تي رکيو وڃي.
In his appeal filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, Raja contended that the IHC, while disposing of his contempt petition, relied solely on the oral assertion of the Adiala jail superintendent regarding alleged compliance with previous judicial directions.
The appeal contended that the high court failed to call for the relevant record or verify from jail authorities the implementation of earlier directions and standard operating procedures (SOPs) for arranging regular meetings with the former premier at Adiala jail.
“This constitutes a miscarriage of justice and a failure to exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution,” the petition contended.
The petition further contended that the IHC failed to appreciate that its own judgment of March 24, 2025, had laid down clear and unambiguous directions regarding visitation rights of the PTI founding chairman with his legal team and nominated coordinators, and that the executive authorities were legally bound to comply with judicial orders unless modified or set aside by a superior forum.
“The right of a prisoner to consult and communicate with his legal counsel is an integral part of Articles 4, 9, 10, and 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantee protection of law, liberty, fair trial, and due process,” the petition said, adding that the high court, while disposing of the matter on administrative grounds, failed to safeguard these fundamental and inviolable rights.
“The high court misapplied Rule 265 of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978, without examining whether its rigid application is consistent with constitutional guarantees. These rules, being subordinate legislation, cannot override or restrict fundamental rights or judicial orders issued under Article 199 of the Constitution,” it argued.
The case was fixed for hearing in line with an earlier understanding reached during a May 20 meeting between Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi and Raja, who is also representing Imran in various cases.
Members of the opposition had protested outside the SC, demanding that cases involving the incarcerated PTI founder be scheduled for hearing and that he be allowed to meet his family.
The bench, while hearing a petition filed by Dr Uzma Khan, sister of the PTI founder, directed the petitioner to furnish a vakalatnama (power of attorney) and file a fresh application for early hearing of her appeal.
“Upon the receipt of the power of attorney and the application for early hearing, the Registrar’s Office will schedule the case for hearing,” the court observed.
Advocate Uzair Karamat Bhandari argued that the appeal had not been numbered in the Supreme Court (SC) for the past month, while the power of attorney of the PTI founder had not been received for two months.
At this, Justice Mazhar inquired whether the power of attorney was being submitted today, to which the lawyer replied that it was initially unavailable, and the appeal had therefore been filed through a special power of attorney.
ٻڌڻي دوران جسٽس حسن رمارڪس ڏنا ته جيڪڏهن ڪيس جي جلد ٻڌڻي جي ضرورت آهي ته جلد ٻڌڻي لاءِ مناسب درخواست داخل ڪئي وڃي.
Filed through senior advocate Bhandari, Uzma explained that she was not a party to the proceedings before IHC but aggrieved by the impugned judgment. ان حوالي سان هن سپريم ڪورٽ جي فيصلي جو حوالو پڻ H.M. سايا جو ڪيس جنهن ۾ ماڻهن کي اجازت ڏني وئي ته هڪ حڪم يا حڪم کان متاثر ٿيل ماڻهن کي سپريم ڪورٽ جي اڳيان چئلينج ڪرڻ لاء.
درخواست ۾ موقف اختيار ڪيو ته سندس ڀاءُ ۽ سندس زال بشرا بي بي هن وقت اڊيالا جيل ۾ قيد آهن، جڏهن ته سندس ٻه پٽ پرڏيهه ۾ رهندا آهن.
هن پنهنجي درخواست ۾ الزام هنيو ته سندس ڀيڻ ۽ قابليت جي لحاظ کان ڊاڪٽر هجڻ جي ڪري درخواست ڪندڙ کي پنهنجي ڀاءُ لاءِ فطري محبت ۽ پيار آهي ۽ هو پنهنجي صحت ۽ سلامتيءَ جو سخت خيال رکي ٿو، جنهن ڪري جوابدارن جي سرڪاري ڪمن ۽ غفلتن سبب خطري ۾ پئجي رهيو آهي.
درخواست ۾ وڌيڪ چيو ويو آهي ته جيل اختيارين عمران جي دستخط ڪيل ايڊووڪيٽ آن رڪارڊ جي حق ۾ پاور آف اٽارني وٺڻ کان انڪار ڪيو، هو هن وقت تائين فيصلي خلاف درخواست داخل نه ڪري سگهيو.
”جيڪڏهن هاءِ ڪورٽ جو فيصلو هڪ طرف نه رکيو ويو ته اهو درخواست ڏيندڙ جي ڪيس تي سڌو ۽ منفي اثر ڪري سگهي ٿو،“ هن دليل ڏيندي چيو ته درخواست ڪندڙ ان ڪري ناراض هو ۽ ان فيصلي کي چيلينج ڪرڻ لاءِ لوس اسٽينڊ هو.
سپريم ڪورٽ کي استدعا ڪئي وئي ته درخواست جي ٻڌڻي دوران آءِ جي سنڌ هاءِ ڪورٽ جو فيصلو معطل ڪيو وڃي ۽ عمران جو فوري طبي معائنو ڪرائڻ جو حڪم ڏنو وڃي جنهن ۾ خرم مرزا، عاصم يوسف، فيصل سلطان ۽ ثمينه نيازي شامل آهن.
درخواست ۾ موقف اختيار ڪيو ويو ته آءِ ايڇ سي جو انڪار آئين جي آرٽيڪل 9 تحت فرد جي تحفظ جي درخواست ڏيندڙ جي بنيادي حق جي سڌي ڀڃڪڙي آهي.
