The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday mandated that visitors meeting with former Prime Minister Imran Khan must refrain from speaking to the media on the jail premises, a significant directive issued while ordering prison authorities to ensure all meetings proceed without obstruction.
The instruction came from a three-member larger bench, led by Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar and including Justice Arbab Tahir and Justice Azam Khan. The court was hearing an intra-court appeal against a prior ruling by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan that had invalidated jail rules preventing political discussions during visitations.
During the session, advocate Salman Akram Raja, representing Imran Khan, highlighted that Thursday was a designated day for meetings and urged the court to instruct jail officials to facilitate the visit promptly. In response, the bench directed, ‘Submit the list of visitors to the Superintendent Adiala Jail, who shall facilitate meetings in line with SOPs without any obstruction.’
The proceedings also featured arguments from Advocate General Punjab Amjad Pervez, who contended that the earlier single-bench decision was flawed. He informed the court that neither the Attorney General nor the Advocate General had been issued a notice before the law was struck down, a procedural step he argued was required by Supreme Court precedents.
Pervez requested a suspension of the single-bench verdict. However, PTI counsel Salman Akram Raja interjected, noting that such a move would impact other pending petitions related to prison meetings.
Chief Justice Dogar advised Raja to wait for the Advocate General to conclude his arguments. “Let him finish his submissions first,” the Chief Justice stated, later adding, “Assistance is not required at this stage; let him conclude first,” after Raja offered to assist the court.
Clarifying the new directive, Chief Justice Dogar observed that while meetings should continue according to standard procedures, those visiting Imran Khan are now barred from holding media talks outside the jail. He specified, however, that this restriction does not extend to media interactions conducted later in their chambers or at other locations.
The court subsequently adjourned further proceedings on the matter.