Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section:

Law: Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003

Section:

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Summary The Court noted that the matters before it arise under two separate legal frameworks—criminal procedure and contempt law—and that it has jurisdiction to decide them. However, because the Federal Constitutional Court has called for the record of these proceedings while hearing related matters involving substantially similar relief, the Court deferred further consideration to obtain assistance from the Attorney General on the constitutional and institutional implications, particularly in the interest of judicial comity. Core Points The proceedings reached the Court through two legal routes: The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. The Court had passed an interim order on 18 August 2026 concerning the prisoner’s medical treatment. That interim order was expressly made without prejudice to the parties’ rights and contentions. Related cases arising from an Islamabad High Court judgment under Article 199 of the Constitution are pending before the Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan. The relief sought before the Federal Constitutional Court is substantially similar to the relief already granted by this Court through its interim order. By order dated 15 September 2026, the Federal Constitutional Court directed its office to requisition the relevant cases from the Supreme Court through the Registrar and to list them with the related appeals. The Court considered that the Federal Constitutional Court’s order raises important constitutional, legal, and potentially Islamic-law questions. Rather than deciding those questions immediately, the Court sought assistance from the Attorney General for Pakistan on: The proper course to adopt. The effect, if any, of the Federal Constitutional Court’s order on the pending proceedings. Avoiding institutional conflict and maintaining judicial comity between the two apex judicial institutions. The Attorney General stated that the issue is unprecedented and requires careful examination in light of recent constitutional amendments. The Attorney General requested three weeks to prepare submissions; the Court allowed the request. The matter was adjourned…