ISLAMABAD – Uzma Khan, sister of PTI founder Imran Khan, Thursday filed another application in the Supreme Court seeking an early hearing of her contempt of court petition in the case concerning her brother’s hospital transfer. In the application, Uzma Khan stated that Imran Khan’s health is deteriorating in jail and that, contrary to the Supreme Court’s order, he was taken to PIMS. She requested that he be shifted to Shifa International Hospital for medical examination and treatment. Uzma Khan said that the Supreme Court’s August 18 order was deliberately not implemented in its true spirit and urged the court to ensure immediate and complete compliance with its directives.
The application stated that continued non-compliance with judicial orders amounts to a violation of law. It further maintained that the case fixation policy does not prevent the urgent hearing of a contempt petition. According to the application, an earlier request for an urgent hearing was rejected on August 25. However, it was not made clear whether the request had been rejected by the Chief Justice. Uzma Khan has requested the Supreme Court to fix the contempt of court petition for an immediate hearing. The petition maintained that the court’s order was “clear, unambiguous and binding” and alleged that the respondents had “deliberately failed to implement the order in its true letter and spirit”. The petition described the continued non-compliance as “wilful, blatant and contumacious”, saying it directly concerned Imran’s fundamental rights, life, health and physical well-being. The fresh application also raised questions over the current listing of the case for September 16. “It is unclear whether the above constitute directions by the competent authority/Honourable chief justice for fixation of the contempt matter on 16.09.2026, or simply the noting of the learned Registrar which has been placed before the competent authority for consideration,” it stated.
“If the former is true, and the case has been fixed on 16.09.2026, it is respectfully requested that the directions be reconsidered and the matter be fixed for hearing expeditiously, either this week or as early as possible next week,” it said. The application argued that the case warranted exceptional urgency, saying it was “unique on its facts and in the manner in which the order of this Honourable Court has been brazenly flouted”. “It has brought the governance and the judicial systems of Pakistan into critical focus internationally,” the application said. It further argued that the reasons for delaying the hearing could not justify waiting until September 16. “The reasons set out above, with respect, cannot justify such a long delay in the hearing of the case,” it stated. The applicant also relied on the SC’s case fixation policy, arguing that it did not prevent the immediate hearing of her contempt petition. “There is nothing in the case Fixation Policy of this Honourable Court which prevents the immediate fixation of the titled Crl. OP No. 8 of 2026,” the application said.
“In fact, the Fixation Policy clearly prioritises liberty-related matters, especially where they arise due to non-compliance of court orders,” it added. Uzma further pointed out that the fixation policy empowered the chief justice to order an early hearing.
“It is pertinent that paragraph 14(d) of the order dated 18.08.2026 allows the family members of Mr Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi to file an appropriate application in case of non-implementation of the order,” the application stated.
The petition also claimed that she had a strong prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was “entirely in favour of early fixation”. “No prejudice will be caused to the Respondents if the matter is heard at the earliest, whereas delay may cause irreparable loss and injury,” it said.
\The application also noted that, according to media reports, the respondents had themselves sought an early hearing of their review petition. The application ultimately requested that the contempt petition be fixed “at the earliest possible date within this week or early next week”, instead of September 16. The request was made “in the interest of justice, protection of life and health, and due enforcement of the order of this Honourable Court”.
