ISLAMABAD: The government and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) traded sharp words in the Senate on Tuesday over the transfer of PTI founder Imran Khan to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (Pims) instead of Shifa International Hospital.

The dispute centres on an August 18 Supreme Court order directing authorities to transfer the former prime minister to Shifa International Hospital for a medical examination. Authorities instead shifted Khan to Pims, citing security concerns.

Imran Khan Hospital Transfer Sparks Senate Dispute

PTI Senator Ali Zafar raised the issue in the Senate and moved a motion to present a resolution on judicial supremacy.

Zafar alleged that the government had failed to implement the Supreme Court’s order because Imran Khan was not taken to Shifa Hospital and the required medical board was not constituted.

He also accused the government of effectively changing the Supreme Court’s order on its own.

“You may have political differences with the founder, but do not play with someone’s health,” Zafar said.

The PTI senator also criticised the government for refusing to support a resolution affirming belief in judicial supremacy.

Prime Minister’s Adviser Rana Sanaullah rejected the PTI’s allegations and said lawmakers should not determine whether a court order had been implemented.

“Whether the court order was complied with or not — it is for the court to decide,” Sanaullah said.

He accused PTI of politicising Imran Khan’s health and maintained that the government had acted according to the circumstances surrounding the court order.

Sanaullah said Imran Khan had initially been taken to Shifa Hospital but was transferred to a government hospital at the last minute because of security concerns.

He said the government and administration would present evidence regarding the security situation outside Shifa Hospital before the Supreme Court.

Sanaullah also rejected allegations of negligence, saying no negligence had occurred in relation to Imran Khan’s health and none would occur.

Following a medical examination at Pims, Imran Khan was taken back to Adiala Jail.

The Supreme Court’s August 18 order had directed authorities to transfer the former prime minister to Shifa International Hospital for medical examination.

After the decision to shift him to Pims instead, the PTI filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court, alleging that the court’s order had not been properly implemented.

PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Khan separately criticised the decision while speaking to journalists near the Dahgal checkpoint on Adiala Road in Rawalpindi.

Gohar claimed that the plan to transfer Imran Khan had been changed at the last minute, saying whoever made the decision had acted wrongly.

He said the PTI had been close to making significant progress but that its efforts had been undermined.

The PTI chairman also expressed disappointment that Imran Khan had allegedly not received proper treatment at Pims.

He maintained that the Supreme Court’s order could still be implemented if the relevant authorities acted on it.

Gohar said the government had never informed the PTI about security concerns relating to the planned transfer to Shifa Hospital.

He added that the PTI itself had security concerns regarding Imran Khan.

His comments came in response to Federal Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Tariq Fazal Chaudhry, who said the former premier had been shifted to Pims because of the security situation.

Gohar said the PTI had issued a clear directive through its core and political committees that no one should go to Shifa Hospital.

He added that Imran Khan’s sister had confirmed that the former premier had been taken to Pims.

PTI Seeks Early Hearing of Contempt Petition

Gohar said the PTI’s contempt petition had been assigned a number in the Supreme Court and that the party had requested an early hearing.

He clarified that the PTI had not violated the court’s orders and described the petition as a civil contempt matter concerning implementation of the Supreme Court’s order.

The dispute is now likely to return to the Supreme Court, where the question of whether authorities complied with the August 18 directive will ultimately be determined.