ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) re-filed a contempt of court case on Tuesday [25 August 2026] through the sibling of party creator Imran Khan, accusing authorities of breaching a Supreme Court directive from 18 August that mandated moving the former prime minister to a private medical facility.
Subsequently, Imran’s sibling Uzma Khan also submitted a formal request seeking an expedited hearing for the contempt filing.
The contempt lawsuit was re-filed shortly after the apex judiciary sent it back after identifying specific technical issues.
PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan stated that the supreme judicial registrar had notified him regarding the document being returned, with a primary concern being that the formal inventory of accusations directed at the accused parties had not been attached. He further mentioned that the opposition party intended to immediately re-submit the filing after rectifying the administrative discrepancies highlighted by the court.
During the previous week, Imran’s sister Uzma Khan had initiated a legal challenge before the apex court targeting state administrators for allegedly ignoring the judiciary’s August 18 directive. Within that specific mandate, the legal panel had instructed federal authorities to relocate Imran to Shifa International Hospital, a private healthcare entity, inside a 48-hour window to undergo evaluation and clinical care by a diverse medical council.
Nevertheless, administrative officials alternatively escorted the PTI originator to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), a state-operated healthcare facility, to receive a clinical review and then later returned him to the detention center. Following the incident, Information Minister Attaullah Tarar attributed the route alteration to the volatile protection environment generated by political activists along the transit path and outside the medical center.
Within her legal submission, Uzma—who witnessed the entire clinical check-up firsthand—formally identified Islamabad Chief Commissioner (retired) Lieutenant Sohail Ashraf, Interior Secretary Ahmed Raza Sarwar, Punjab Inspector General of Prisons Mian Salik Jalal, Adiala Jail Superintendent Sajid Baig, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, and Information Minister Attaullah Tarar as the principal respondents in the case.
She asserted that the designated respondents had engaged in conscious, intentional, and defiant non-compliance and breach of the judicial directive. Furthermore, she petitioned the supreme judicial body to assign an official or designate a localized panel to guarantee that Imran was instantaneously relocated to the private medical center in strict compliance with its previous mandates.
Simultaneously, the Islamabad chief commissioner also initiated contact with the apex court, requesting an expedited proceeding for his review filing, which challenged the constitutional validity of the August 18 directive.
On Monday, Gohar conducted a meeting with the supreme court registrar and received assurances that a judicial panel would be established shortly to move forward with the contempt of court lawsuit.
Answering a media query, he completely dismissed any notions regarding a political agreement with the administration, asserting that the PTI architect avoids compromising his principles, or else he would not have endured a three-year period of incarceration.
Expedited Hearing Petition
Within her formal request for an accelerated proceeding, Uzma emphasized that the current legal matter directly impacts the safety, physical condition, honor, and structural welfare of Imran, whose physiological state was reportedly “declining and whose survival is understood to be endangered.”
“Each subsequent postponement could trigger profound and irreversible physical detriment,” the legal request noted.
The formal motion affirmed that the August 18 judicial mandate was legally bound to be executed instantaneously and in its literal, comprehensive interpretation.
“The submission or ongoing consideration of an administrative review motion by the chief commissioner does not, on its own, halt or weaken the mandatory execution of the verdict unless its enforcement is explicitly suspended by the Supreme Court,” the legal document stated.
It further noted that the executives identified within the contempt lawsuit were statutorily obligated to conduct operations strictly under the explicit mandates issued by the Supreme Court.
“Should any legitimate explanation or adjustment be deemed essential, the legally sound protocol required engaging the Supreme Court directly, instead of deviating from or overriding its explicit mandates,” the document contended.
The petitioner also voiced deep dissatisfaction that the “defiance” displayed by the accused individuals remained “ongoing and continuous,” highlighting that this situation demanded “instantaneous judicial intervention to ensure that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is defended and its instructions regarding the survival and physical condition of the inmate are executed without any subsequent delay.”
“The moving party possesses a compelling prima facie argument, and the considerations of procedural equity rest completely in support of an immediate scheduling,” the motion stated, maintaining that no administrative detriment would be inflicted upon the respondents if the issue was adjudicated immediately.
Conversely, it noted, any further postponement could result in “permanent devastation and physical harm.”
The formal request additionally referenced journalistic coverage, reminding the bench that the chief commissioner, within his own separate review challenge, had similarly petitioned for an accelerated scheduling of his legal argument.
