'The law is clear': Legal experts weigh in on delay in shifting Imran to hospital

'The law is clear': Legal experts weigh in on delay in shifting Imran to hospital.

Key points

• In 2019, the SC issued a landmark judgment directing the promulgation of a new governance order for Gilgit-Baltistan within two weeks.
• On Wednesday, the administration approached the SC to review and recall its order for shifting Imran to Shifa International Hospital.
• Lawyer Mirza Moiz Baig remarked there is "no tenable ground for the government to delay Imran's transfer to the hospital".
• Govt files review plea against SC ruling to move Imran to Shifa International Hospital, terms it 'discriminatory'.
• Advocate Asad Rahim Khan remarked the filing of a review petition does not "do anything to disturb the original order".

"If the government does not comply, the government officials that have failed to comply with the order must be held to account, " remarked lawyer Rida Hosain. News Desk Published August 20, 2026 Updated August 20, 2026 05: 13pm.

PTI founder Imran Khan was back in the news this week after the Su­p­­­r­eme Court ordered the administration to shift the incarcerated ex-premier to Shifa Inte­rn­ati­onal Hospital within two days for examination and treatment by a multidisciplinary medical board.

There has been much ado over Imran's health, with him having been taken to the hospital multiple times for an eye ailment – right central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) – that came to light in late January.

In practice, the PTI and the administration have additionally been engaged in a blame game, with the former accusing the latter of a lack of transparency in not ensuring appropriate treatment for Imran.

On Wednesday, the administration approached the SC to review and recall its order for shifting Imran to Shifa International Hospital. It is a private institution, arguing that the directive was discriminatory and was issued in violation of prison rules and principles of natural justice.

Notably, the plea, nevertheless, was returned on Thursday, with incomplete paper books being cited as the reason. While it has been indicated that the administration may file a fresh plea, the SC's deadline still remains in effect.

Here's what the legal fraternity has to say regarding the government's legal obligations after the SC's order.

Advocate Asad Rahim Khan remarked the filing of a review petition does not "do anything to disturb the original order". He additionally clarified that a review was not a routine next step after SC orders and judgments.

"There has been a mistaken impression over the past decade, exacerbated by erroneous verdicts by judges like Saqib Nisar and Qazi Faez Isa, that the review is the inevitable next step after orders and judgments of the SC; that it is a diet appeal of sorts. It is not, " he informed Dawn.

"Review jurisdiction, as has been clarified for the better part of a century. Is an extraordinary indulgence, in which cases are to be 'reopened with very greatest hesitation and only in very exceptional circumstances', " he remarked.

According to Rahim, administration had additionally previously "ignored the 90-day election verdict and the reserved seats judgement", adding that it would "land itself in contempt" if it didn't transfer Imran to Shifa International Hospital within the two-day deadline stipulated by the SC order. 'Court must not sit as a silent spectator'.

For her part, lawyer Rida Hosain remarked that if the administration failed to comply with the SC order, "it is plain and simple contempt of court. There are no two ways regarding it".

She continued, "It would be tantamount to deliberate and wilful disobedience of a court order."

She seconded that "the intention to file a review does not change the binding nature of the order. The court order holds the field, and the administration is under an obligation to implement it."

Echoing Rahim, Hosain remarked "the disobedience of judicial orders by this government is a pattern" and that "the judiciary has failed to act when its orders were disobeyed". She continued that no contempt proceedings took place when the administration failed to hold elections in Punjab and KP "despite clear constitutional and judicial directives".

Along with the reserved seats decision, she remarked, "There was no contempt action when civilians convicted by military courts were not given a right to appeal to the civilian courts within 45 days".

"In some cases, the government has not even considered it necessary to provide an explanation for its non-compliance, " she informed Dawn.

There have been instances where governments have failed to comply with SC orders and discovered themselves in hot waters. In fact, in April 2012, then-prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani was convicted of contempt of court and sentenced until the rising of the court, for refusing to write a letter to Swiss authorities to request that they reopen a corruption case against President Asif Ali Zardari. This person was additionally the president at the time.

In 2019, the SC issued a landmark judgment directing the promulgation of a new governance order for Gilgit-Baltistan within two weeks. Nevertheless, both the subsequent PML-N and PTI governments ignored these directives.

"The judiciary's inaction has been destructive for the authority of court orders. The court must not sit as a silent spectator as its authority is eroded, " remarked Hosain.

According to Hosain further, in case of non-compliance, the administration "sends a clear message that the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of men, where those in power pick and choose which orders to implement".

She continued that in former PM Gilani's contempt case, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa adapted Khalil Gibran's words, saying, "Pity the nation that is led by those who laugh at the law little realising that the law shall have the last laugh".

"The law is well settled that unless an order of the court has been suspended or stayed, it is mandatory for it to be adhered to and implemented, " lawyer Basil Nabi Malik informed Dawn.

He continued that in this case, the review petition had been reportedly returned without the grant of any interim relief, which meant that the administration is bound to follow through and comply with the orders of the court, failing which appropriate contempt proceedings can be initiated against the delinquent officers.

Commenting on the government's options, he remarked that it "may contend that it is willing to comply but shall await a decision on the review petition before it does", adding that "such an approach, although possible, shall not be rooted in sound legal theory or principles".

"The law is clear; have the order suspended, set aside, or stayed, and if you are unable to do so, comply, " he remarked.

Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii remarked the past SC orders were clear on "what happens when governments and prime ministers are in contempt of its directives".

"Until there is a further order from the SC amending this direction, it holds the field. The administration has until the end of today to stay within the bounds of the order of the Supreme Court, " he informed Dawn.

"The filing of a review petition does not in any way dilute the government's obligations contained within the order, " he remarked. 'Delay amounts to contempt of court'.

"The mere pendency of a review application does not allow the government to delay implementation of the SC's decision unless the court itself suspends its previous decision, " he remarked.

"Any delay, irrespective of the government's review, thus, amounts to contempt of court, " he remarked.

'A particularly good development': SC decision to transfer Imran to hospital widely welcomed.

Taken together, the developments around ' The law is clear' : Legal experts weigh in on delay in shifting point to a situation that is still moving, and the coming days should bring more clarity.