ISLAMABAD:
Despite the passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment and the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), the Supreme Court has signalled that it is far from sidelined.
In a move that has drawn attention across legal and political circles, the apex court has fixed six cases related to former prime minister Imran Khan for hearing next week.
Dozens of PTI cases were transferred to the FCC following the amendment, and many expected the SC’s role in politically sensitive matters to diminish after the FCC’s establishment.
However, despite jurisdictional questions, the SC continues to assert its relevance by hearing political cases. In contrast, the FCC has so far not listed any cases related to PTI, adding another layer of intrigue to the evolving judicial landscape.
A three-judge bench of the SC, led by Justice Hasham Kakar and comprising Justice Salahuddin Ahmed Panwar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, will hear these matters on February 18.
The three judges are renowned for their expertise in criminal law, and the bench has been handling high-profile criminal cases for the past year.
Among the six cases, the most crucial relates to the federal government’s appeals against the acquittal of Imran Khan and Shah Mahmood Qureshi in the cypher case. An Islamabad High Court (IHC) bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan had set aside the trial court judgment and acquitted both leaders.
Legal experts believe there are very limited chances that the appeal against the acquittal will be accepted. They say the prosecution committed several blunders during the trial, which have benefited both PTI leaders.
Barrister Asad Rahim Khan says that the Supreme Court is presiding over a historic, once-in-a-lifetime evaporation of its powers. What used to be the final arbiter of Pakistan’s constitutional promise is now a forgotten subordinate playing up its ability to hear rent and divorce cases.
“But here we are: its authority in Imran Khan’s case extends only to sending a roving inquiry to report back on jailhouse facilities. Not a word on substantive justice; on the mountain of FIRs; on anything, in fact, that involves final resolution.”
He said that the current state of the highest court should more than satisfy its critics over the past two decades: rather than debate the merits of activism versus restraint, there is now a system that is legally incapable of attempting either.
“What really boggles the mind is why this chief justice would wish to lead his court to complete constitutional redundancy. What’s the point?”
Last week, a division bench of the SC led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi referred these six cases to the three-member bench.
The same bench, however, had appointed advocate Salman Safdar as a friend of the court to visit Adiala Jail to inspect the living conditions of Imran Khan and submit a report.
The report has already been submitted, revealing that Imran Khan stated that approximately three to four months earlier, until October 2025, he had normal 6 x 6 vision in both eyes. He then began experiencing persistent blurred and hazy vision, which he repeatedly reported to the then jail superintendent.
However, no action was taken by the jail authorities to address these complaints, the report states.
Likewise, Salman Safdar in his report observed that Imran Khan appeared visibly perturbed and deeply distressed by the loss of vision and the absence of timely and specialised medical intervention.
Throughout the meeting, Imran Khan’s eyes were watery, and he repeatedly used a tissue to wipe them, reflecting physical discomfort”
Following this, the SC ordered the formation of a medical team to examine Imran Khan’s eye and allowed him to speak to his children via phone call. The bench has sought a report on both issues by February 16.
