The federal government’s decision to file a review petition before the Honourable Supreme Court against the order directing the transfer of former Prime Minister and founder Chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Imran Khan, from Adiala Jail to Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, is both surprising and deeply disappointing.

The government undoubtedly has the legal right to seek a review of a judicial order. That right cannot and should not be questioned. But the more important question is whether exercising that right in this particular matter is sensible, necessary and in the national interest.

At a time when Pakistan desperately needs political reconciliation, institutional stability and a reduction in political confrontation, why has the government chosen to challenge an order concerning the medical treatment of a former prime minister?
This is not merely a political question. It is fundamentally a question of humanity, medical care, dignity and equal treatment.

The matter becomes even more difficult to understand when viewed against Pakistan’s own recent political history.
When Nawaz Sharif was in prison during the PTI government, he was ultimately permitted to leave Pakistan for medical treatment in the United Kingdom.

The government headed by Imran Khan allowed the removal of Nawaz Sharif’s name from the Exit Control List, subject to conditions, and the Lahore High Court subsequently permitted him to travel abroad for medical treatment. He eventually left Pakistan for London in November 2019.

This history raises a very simple but profound question:
If Nawaz Sharif could be allowed to travel from prison to London for medical treatment,
why should Imran Khan not be permitted to move from Adiala Jail to a specialist hospital in Islamabad?
The comparison is not being made to demand political revenge or to suggest that every prisoner should automatically receive identical treatment. It is being made to highlight the importance of consistency.
Medical treatment should be determined by medical necessity—not by political affiliation.

If a convicted political leader was considered entitled to specialist medical treatment abroad, it is difficult to understand why the state should now resist the transfer of another former prime minister to a specialist hospital merely because he happens to be its principal political opponent.
There is an even greater irony.

Nawaz Sharif was allowed to travel thousands of miles away from Pakistan. Imran Khan is being considered for transfer only from Adiala Jail to a hospital in Islamabad.
One involved international travel and treatment in London.

The other involves movement within the federal capital.
Why, therefore, has the latter become such a major legal and political controversy?
The government reportedly maintains that medical treatment should ordinarily be provided within the prison system or at an appropriate public-sector hospital and that permitting a private hospital could establish a precedent for other prisoners.
This argument deserves careful examination.

If the government is genuinely concerned about precedent, the answer is not to deny appropriate treatment to one prisoner. Every prisoner can be dealt with according to his or her individual medical circumstances. If a competent medical panel determines that a particular prisoner requires specialist treatment unavailable in prison, the state should facilitate that treatment under appropriate security arrangements.
There is no reason why the same principle cannot apply to Imran Khan.

The government can maintain complete security around the hospital while allowing qualified doctors to examine and treat him. If the medical panel determines that hospitalization is no longer required, he can be returned to prison.
Where, then, is the insurmountable problem?

The government’s decision to challenge the Supreme Court’s order risks creating an unfortunate public perception that the state is more interested in resisting Imran Khan’s transfer than in ensuring his best possible medical care.

That perception is dangerous for public confidence in state institutions.
Institutions do not derive their legitimacy merely from their legal powers. They derive legitimacy from the manner in which those powers are exercised.
The government may have the legal authority to file a review petition. But every exercise of legal authority must also be measured against the larger public interest.

What national interest is served by prolonged confrontation over whether a former prime minister should be examined and treated at a hospital in Islamabad?

Will the country’s economy improve?
Will political stability increase?
Will the bitter political divide disappear?
Will investor confidence rise?
Will public confidence in state institutions strengthen?
It is difficult to see how.

On the contrary, such a move is likely to intensify political polarization and reinforce the perception among millions of citizens that the political system continues to operate according to different standards for different political leaders.

Pakistan has already paid a heavy price for political confrontation.
Governments change.
Political parties rise and fall.
Political leaders who once exercised enormous authority eventually find themselves in opposition, exile or prison.
The lesson of history should therefore be very clear: no political position is permanent.

Today, one political party may be in government while another is struggling outside it. Tomorrow, the political equation can be completely different.
That is why democratic governments must establish principles that they themselves would be prepared to accept when circumstances change.
The treatment of political opponents must never become an instrument of political revenge.

The Nawaz Sharif episode should have taught Pakistan’s political leadership an important lesson. Whatever one’s political opinion of Nawaz Sharif, when his medical condition became a serious issue, humanitarian considerations ultimately prevailed over political differences.
That same principle should apply to Imran Khan.

If medical treatment was considered a legitimate reason for Nawaz Sharif to leave prison and travel to London, then medical treatment for Imran Khan in Islamabad should not be transformed into a political battle.
There is another important dimension to this issue.
A prisoner does not lose his humanity when he enters prison.
Imprisonment restricts liberty. It does not abolish dignity.

A prisoner remains entitled to appropriate medical care and humane treatment. The state has both a legal and moral responsibility to ensure that prisoners receive adequate healthcare.
Imran Khan’s political popularity, his controversial political history or the cases pending against him should not determine the quality of his medical treatment.
Likewise, his supporters should not demand privileges simply because he is popular.
The principle should be simple and universal:
The law must be equal, and medical care must be based on medical need.

If the government believes that Shifa International Hospital is unsuitable, it should present a convincing medical basis for that position. If another hospital is considered better equipped, let an independent panel of specialists determine the matter.

But simply resisting the Supreme Court’s order creates the impression of institutional confrontation rather than responsible governance.

Pakistan does not need another confrontation between the executive and the judiciary over the medical treatment of a former prime minister.
It needs political maturity.
It needs reconciliation.
It needs a government confident enough to demonstrate that it can treat even its most powerful political opponent fairly.

There is nothing weak about compassion.
There is nothing undemocratic about allowing a prisoner to receive appropriate medical treatment.
And there is certainly nothing politically dangerous about demonstrating that the state can rise above partisan considerations.
In fact, the opposite is true.

A government demonstrates its strength not by preventing its political opponents from receiving legitimate medical care, but by ensuring that even its strongest opponent receives justice, dignity and humane treatment.

The government should therefore seriously reconsider whether pursuing this review petition is genuinely in the national interest.
The question before the government is not whether it has the legal right to challenge the Supreme Court’s order.
It does.

The question is whether it should.
And that is a very different question.
Pakistan’s political leadership must understand that today’s actions become tomorrow’s precedents.
The party in government today may be in opposition tomorrow.
The politician celebrating another’s difficulties today may face the same difficulties tomorrow.

The most sensible course, therefore, is to establish principles rather than precedents of political retaliation.
The Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan episode offers Pakistan’s political leadership an opportunity to demonstrate that the country has finally learned from its bitter political past.

If Nawaz Sharif could be permitted to travel from prison to London for medical treatment during the PTI government, there should be no hesitation in allowing Imran Khan to be transferred from Adiala Jail to a suitable hospital in Islamabad if qualified doctors consider it medically necessary.
The standard should be the same.
The principle should be the same.
The humanity should be the same.

Pakistan needs reconciliation, not retaliation; compassion, not confrontation; and the rule of law, not the politics of political vendetta.
The government should ask itself whether its review petition will contribute to political stability or further deepen the divisions that have already caused enormous damage to the country.

The answer should not be determined by political expediency. It should be determined by fairness, humanity and the long-term interests of Pakistan.

The real test of democracy is not how a government treats its friends.
The real test is how it treats its opponents.

Dr Alamdar Hussain Malik
Advisor Academics, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Swat.
Former Financial advisor, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan