IHC reserves verdict on prisoners private hospital treatment pleas

During the hearing, Advocate General Punjab Barrister Zafarullah and Advocate General Islamabad Naveed Hayat Malik opposed the petitions seeking treatment for the three prisoners at private hospitals. Advocate General Punjab argued that the authorities were following the prison manual prepared during the British era, adding that changes were now being made to the law in Punjab.

He also referred to similarities between the Indian Penal Code and Pakistani law. Justice Muhammad Asif questioned what would happen if a prisoner developed an illness, observing that authorities could not play with a prisoner’s health.

During an exchange with the petitioner, the Advocate General Punjab asked to be allowed to speak, saying he had studied some human rights law. He reiterated his opposition to the requests for private hospital treatment.

The court also questioned whether a prisoner who said he had no one in Pakistan would still be denied a telephone conversation with family members abroad. Barrister Zafarullah replied that the authorities would follow what was written in the law, whether it was right or wrong.

Justice Muhammad Asif asked where the law stated that a prisoner could not speak to family members even if they were abroad. The Advocate General Punjab maintained that the law allowed telephone conversations with people present in Pakistan.

He added that if, God forbid, a prisoner developed an illness that could not be treated at a government hospital, the matter would then be considered.

Justice Muhammad Asif raised further questions, asking what would happen if a prisoner wanted a doctor from Karachi to come for treatment, or if a prisoner was at the final stage of an illness and close to death. He also questioned whether the law would be considered if a death-row prisoner expressed a final wish.

Advocate General Islamabad Naveed Hayat Malik also opposed the requests to transfer the prisoners to private hospitals. He argued that the government’s position was not that prisoners should not receive treatment, acknowledging that prisoners also have rights.

He said Article 9 guarantees life, Article 14 provides protection and Article 25 establishes equality, while the prison rules provide a complete system for treating sick prisoners under Chapter 32. He said medical officers examine prisoners and make recommendations regarding their treatment.

He added that the medical officer’s opinion was still part of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Adiala Jail. The Advocate General Islamabad said the petitioners had discussed their wishes, adding that there were thousands of wishes, but not every wish could be fulfilled.

He further argued that PIMS has the best medical officers and is one of the country’s leading hospitals. He said neither the jail superintendent nor the medical officer had reported that the prisoners could not be treated at PIMS.Justice Muhammad Asif remarked that the condition of PIMS should be seen to understand the state of the hospital.

He also Islamabad and Punjab that they should visit PIMS.An unusual situation also arose during the hearing when a uniformed official entered the courtroom while the petitions seeking private hospital treatment for the three prisoners were being heard. Justice Muhammad Asif asked the official which case he had come for.

The official replied that he was an affected party in a prisoner’s case and wanted to become a party through a miscellaneous application. The court directed the official to take a seat. The Islamabad High Court reserved its verdict after completing arguments from the petitioners’ lawyers, the Advocate General Islamabad and the Advocate General Punjab.