SC steps in to restore Imran’s legal access

After months of restrictions on legal access, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has finally succeeded in compelling the Supreme Court to intervene, resulting in a meeting between the incarcerated PTI founder Imran Khan and his lead counsel at Adiala Jail.

Following the SC’s intervention, senior advocate Salman Safdar met Imran Khan on Tuesday inside Adiala Jail. The meeting lasted for more than three hours and marked the first such engagement after a prolonged ban on consultations between the jailed PTI leader and his legal team.

Briefly speaking to reporters after the meeting, Safdar said the interaction took place in compliance with the SC’s directions. He added that details of the meeting would be shared in a report to be submitted before the court on Wednesday (today).

The SC had appointed Safdar as a “friend of the court” to visit Adiala Jail and ascertain the living conditions of Imran Khan. However, Safdar clarified that Imran’s health was stable.

Sources said that while Imran’s morale remained high, he was deeply concerned about restrictions on meetings with his family and lawyers. It was also learnt that his wife, Bushra Bibi, had conveyed a message to PTI leadership, urging them to focus solely on demanding permission for Imran’s physicians to examine him.

The development comes amid a shifting political landscape and followed the SC’s decision to list 13 cases related to Imran Khan for hearing earlier this week, a move that surprised many, including PTI’s own legal team.

A division bench of the SC, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, heard the matter. While hearing a case pending for nearly three years, the bench sought a fresh report from the Attorney General for Pakistan on Imran Khan’s living conditions in jail.

In compliance with the court’s order, Attorney General Mansoor Awan appeared before the bench on Tuesday and informed it that an extensive report detailing Imran Khan’s living conditions had already been submitted for the court’s perusal in 2023, and that the same report had now been re-filed.

After reviewing the report, the bench observed that it related to the period when Imran Khan was confined in District Jail, Attock, during 2023.

“In order to bring a judicial closure to the order passed by this court, it is considered appropriate that a report regarding the present ‘living conditions of the petitioner in jail’ be submitted by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Rawalpindi,” the order said.

The order further stated that Barrister Salman Safdar was appointed as friend of the court to visit the petitioner at Central Prison, Rawalpindi, and submit a written report on the “living conditions of the petitioner in jail”.

“In this regard, the learned Attorney General for Pakistan undertakes that Barrister Salman Safdar, ASC, shall be provided full access to meet the petitioner and inspect his living conditions.”

The court also directed Safdar to submit his report for perusal in chambers on February 11, while adjourning the hearing until Thursday (February 12).

The SC’s intervention has since triggered debate within political and legal circles over the timing and implications of the move.

Several analysts argue that such intervention could not have taken place without executive acquiescence, noting that the government retained the option of challenging the order before the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on jurisdictional grounds.

Former PTI counsel Chaudhry Faisal Hussain described the developments surrounding Safdar’s meeting with Imran Khan as a positive step and “some ice breaking.”

“After the attacks in various cities in Balochistan the distance between PTI and powerful quarters have definitely narrowed. Chief Minister Sohail Khan Afridi’s meeting with PM Shahbaz Sharif followed by apex committee meeting and lacklustre approach towards 8th February agitation call by incumbent PTI leadership reflects a lot,” he said.

Hussain added that there were no visible preparations in the constituencies of major PTI leaders in Punjab ahead of February 8.

“No preparations witnessed in the constituencies of major leaders of Punjab nor MPs or ticket holders created any fever by indulging in door-to-door campaign on February 8. Even Mahmood Khan Achakzai himself preferred to attend Asma Jahangir Conference in Lahore on 8th February after giving call for strike.”

However, he said there were chances of a meeting between Mahmood Khan Achakzai and Imran Khan either before or after Achakzai’s meeting with the prime minister.

“These developments are not without any rhyme or reason, therefore as far as release of Imran is concerned we will have to wait. During Ramzan family meeting may also resume. Since no extension of agitation is given by PTI,” he added.

A section of lawyers believes that while the SC proceedings do not directly challenge the present regime, Chief Justice Afridi may have been compelled to intervene amid growing concerns over the judiciary’s perceived inability to ensure fair treatment for Imran Khan.

There are also reports that PTI lawyers privately met Chief Justice Afridi to seek fair treatment for the imprisoned leader.

Earlier, on January 30, PTI staged a protest outside the SC premises to demand access to Imran Khan, particularly for meetings with his personal physicians. PTI General Secretary Salman Akram Raja had also met with then Chief Justice Isa in this regard.

In a statement, the SC said that during the interaction, concerns regarding access to the imprisoned PTI leader, including access by family members and medical professionals, were conveyed.

“As the matter raised did not directly pertain to proceedings pending before the Supreme Court, the concerns were referred to the relevant executive authorities for consideration in accordance with law, on which the gathering dispersed peacefully.”

The statement added that in the absence of any response for a week, a delegation including opposition leaders from the Senate and National Assembly again approached the Supreme Court on February 6, 2026, submitting a signed memorandum that was formally received by the registrar.

It further said that the SC had also issued Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to address such situations in the future.

“The SOPs emphasise ensuring accessibility, facilitation, and provision of necessary amenities, including emergency medical cover, without compromising institutional decorum, judicial functions, or the rights of access of other litigants.”