Imran's hospital visit: Ex-PM's sister again moves SC for early hearing of contempt plea against govt

Imran's hospital visit: Ex-PM's sister again moves SC for early hearing of contempt plea against govt.

Key points

• Nasir Iqbal Published August 27, 2026 Updated August 27, 2026 03: 00pm.
• The fresh application, filed through Advocate Uzair Karamat Bhandari, sought the initiation of contempt proceedings against administration functionaries within the present or early next week.
• It stated that the contempt plea was meant to ensure the immediate implementation of the Aug 18 order.
• Since the main case relating to Imran's health was pending on Sept 16, the contempt plea may additionally be taken on the same date, the office had decided.
• On Tuesday, Uzma filed the contempt plea against administration functionaries and an application for its early hearing.

Nasir Iqbal Published August 27, 2026 Updated August 27, 2026 03: 00pm. Join our Whatsapp Channel. Add Dawn as a trusted source.

ISLAMABAD: Jailed former premier Imran Khan's sister, Uzma Khan, submitted a second application to the Supreme Court on Thursday for the early hearing of a contempt petition against administration functionaries accused of flouting the Supreme Court (SC) directive to shift the PTI founder to Islamabad's Shifa International Hospital.

On August 18, a three-member SC bench issued a number of directives on pleas concerning Imran's health and instructed authorities to move him to Shifa International Hospital, a private facility.

Nevertheless, the administration instead took the PTI founder to Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (Pims), a administration hospital, for a check-up and then transported him back to the prison.

On Tuesday, Uzma filed the contempt plea against administration functionaries and an application for its early hearing. But, the court fixed September 16 to hear the case.

Meanwhile, the fresh application, filed through Advocate Uzair Karamat Bhandari, sought the initiation of contempt proceedings against administration functionaries within the present or early next week.

For context, the early hearing would "serve the interest of justice, protection of life and health and due enforcement" of the SC orders, the application remarked. It continued that the subject matter of the petition concerned the life, health, dignity and physical well-being of "a national hero and a former prime minister", whose health was deteriorating and whose life was stated to be in jeopardy.

It was unclear whether the decision to hear the matter on Sept 16 constituted directions by the competent authority/ the chief justice, or simply the "noting of the registrar which has been placed before the competent authority for consideration".

Meanwhile, the application pleaded that if the former was true, the decision to fix the case on Sept 16 be reconsidered and the matter be fixed for hearing expeditiously, either this week or as early as feasible next week.

"The present case is unique on its facts and in the manner in which the Aug 18 order of this court has been brazenly flouted, " the application stated, adding that it had brought the governance and judicial systems of the country into international focus.

"Any further delay in hearing of the contempt petition may cause serious and irreparable harm, " it argued.

According to The application, the reasons set out for not fixing the contempt plea early could not justify such a long delay in the hearing of the case.

Earlier, the SC office had remarked that an early hearing of the contempt petition was not feasible in view of the fact that there were 94 separate original criminal petitions of the same category pending before the court. According to The office had, the fixation policy required that cases be fixed for hearing on their turn in the relevant category, and it was unlikely that the turn of the contempt case would come up.

But, Uzma's fresh application argued that there was nothing in the SC's fixation policy preventing the immediate fixation of the contempt petition, and that in fact the policy "clearly prioritises" matters related to liberty – "especially where they arise due to non-compliance of court orders".

Highlighting that the policy allowed the chief justice to pass orders for early fixation of the hearing, it remarked the applicant had "a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience lies entirely in favour of early fixation".

In practice, the application contended that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the matter was heard at the earliest, whereas delay could cause "irreparable loss and injury".

For now, imran' s hospital visit: Ex-PM' s sister again moves SC for early hearing of remains the part of the story worth watching, and further updates are likely as more details are confirmed.