Supreme Court Questions FCC Move to Take Up Imran Khan Cases
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN — WEB DESK: Pakistan’s Supreme Court has raised significant constitutional and legal questions over the Federal Constitutional Court’s (FCC) move to requisition records of pending cases involving former prime minister Imran Khan and have them fixed before itself, bringing the jurisdictional relationship between the country’s two apex judicial institutions into sharper focus.
A three-member Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Shahid Waheed, and including Justices Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, considered the issue while hearing matters concerning Imran Khan’s medical treatment and access to family members.
Rather than immediately ruling on the FCC’s authority, the Supreme Court adopted a cautious approach and sought assistance from Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan on the constitutional implications.
Supreme Court Raises Constitutional Questions
In its three-page order, the Supreme Court said the FCC’s directive raised questions of “considerable constitutional and legal significance,” involving interpretation and application of the Constitution, relevant laws and, where necessary, principles of Islamic law.
The court sought the attorney general’s assistance on what course should be followed and to what extent the FCC’s order affects proceedings already pending before the Supreme Court.
The bench said it wanted to avoid a situation inconsistent with the proper functioning of the two apex judicial institutions while preserving judicial comity.
The attorney general described the situation as “unprecedented” and requested three weeks to examine the constitutional questions and prepare his submissions.
The Supreme Court accepted that request and adjourned proceedings for three weeks.
What Did the Federal Constitutional Court Order?
The jurisdictional issue emerged after the FCC on September 15 ordered that complete records of cases concerning Imran Khan’s transfer to Shifa International Hospital be requisitioned from the Supreme Court.
The FCC also sought records of similar proceedings pending before high courts.
The order came during proceedings involving three Adiala Jail prisoners — Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Mohammad Ismail Hussain and Owais Altaf — who had sought treatment-related relief similar to that granted to Imran Khan by the Supreme Court.
Their petitions had previously been dismissed by the Islamabad High Court.
A three-member FCC bench headed by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan and including Justices Ali Baqar Najafi and Aamer Farooq invoked Article 175-E of the Constitution in seeking the records.
Article 175-E at Centre of Dispute
The dispute largely revolves around the scope of Article 175-E, introduced through Pakistan’s 27th Constitutional Amendment.
The provision empowers the Federal Constitutional Court to call for records and adjudicate matters involving substantial constitutional questions.
The Supreme Court acknowledged during Wednesday’s proceedings that the FCC could summon records under Article 175-E(5).
However, the judges questioned whether that authority also allowed the FCC to fix for hearing cases that were already pending before the Supreme Court.
Justice Waheed specifically focused on the wording of paragraph six of the FCC’s September 15 order.
Dawn reported that he observed that the power to fix requisitioned Supreme Court cases before the FCC did not appear to be expressly stated in Article 175-E(5).
Is the FCC Order Binding on Supreme Court?
Another major issue raised during proceedings concerned whether an FCC order of this nature is binding upon the Supreme Court.
Justice Waheed observed that the Supreme Court could not simply disregard the FCC’s order but questioned the extent to which it was legally binding in proceedings already before the SC.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan also drew attention to the constitutional wording, noting that Article 175-E(5) did not specifically mention the FCC requisitioning records from the Supreme Court in the way other constitutional provisions expressly refer to the effect of FCC rulings.
These observations were questions raised during proceedings rather than a final judicial determination.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled that the FCC lacked jurisdiction, nor has it declared the FCC’s September 15 order invalid.
Imran Khan’s August 18 Hospital Order
The jurisdictional dispute developed from proceedings concerning Imran Khan’s medical treatment.
On August 18, the same Supreme Court bench ordered the government to transfer the incarcerated former prime minister to Shifa International Hospital for medical treatment.
According to the Tribune report, that order was not fully implemented, after which Imran’s sister Uzma Khan filed a contempt petition against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and others.
The contempt matter was also before the Supreme Court bench.
Meanwhile, the three other prisoners sought similar treatment-related relief through separate litigation, eventually bringing their cases before the FCC.
The overlap between those proceedings produced the current constitutional question over which court should hear the related matters.
Supreme Court Highlights Shariat Jurisdiction
The hearing also produced another unusual constitutional question.
Justice Waheed noted that the Supreme Court hears appeals from the Federal Shariat Court and asked whether it could grant relief to prisoners based on guiding principles of the Holy Quran and Sunnah, an area he said was not within the FCC’s jurisdiction.
The attorney general responded that the Supreme Court’s Shariat Appellate Bench possesses jurisdiction to interpret questions in light of Islamic principles.
This issue adds another layer to the wider debate over how jurisdiction is divided between the two courts following the 27th Amendment.
Competing Legal Interpretations Emerge
Legal experts quoted by the Express Tribune offered conflicting interpretations of the amended constitutional framework.
One former attorney general argued that the Supreme Court should formally frame the jurisdictional questions and refer them to a full court rather than concede its domain.
Another senior lawyer argued that Article 175-E should be interpreted in light of the judicial structure created by the 27th Amendment and that the FCC’s constitutional authority to call for records must be given substantive legal effect.
These are legal opinions, not judicial findings, and illustrate that the meaning and reach of the new constitutional framework remain contested.
FCC Chief Justice Stresses Constitutional Boundaries
The dispute has emerged at the same time that FCC Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan has publicly emphasised constitutional supremacy.
Speaking at the opening of the FCC’s 2026-27 judicial year on Tuesday, Justice Aminuddin said every institution derives its authority from the Constitution and must operate within constitutional boundaries.
Those remarks were made in a broader institutional address and should not be interpreted as a direct response to Wednesday’s Supreme Court proceedings.
Why the Dispute Matters
The controversy extends beyond Imran Khan’s medical-treatment litigation.
The underlying question concerns how constitutional jurisdiction is divided between the Supreme Court and the newly established Federal Constitutional Court following the 27th Amendment.
The Supreme Court has so far avoided issuing a definitive ruling on that relationship.
Instead, it has given the attorney general three weeks to examine the issue while stressing the need to preserve the functioning and comity of both institutions.
The most accurate current position is therefore that the Supreme Court has questioned the scope and effect of the FCC’s order but has not yet ruled against it.
The attorney general’s submissions — and any subsequent interpretation of Article 175-E — could have implications extending well beyond the cases currently involving Imran Khan.
