Pakistan’s Imran Khan Seeks Suspension of 17-Year Sentence as Health Dispute Intensifies
Health concerns, a contested jailhouse eye exam, and legal objections collide as courts weigh whether medical grounds justify relief
[ISLAMABAD] Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s legal team has petitioned a federal high court to suspend his 17-year prison term in a graft case—10 years under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code (criminal breach of trust) plus a further seven years under the Prevention of Corruption Act—arguing that his worsening health warrants immediate relief, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Khan’s party, said Saturday.
Khan’s lawyers, in a petition filed before the Islamabad High Court, have sought suspension of the December 20, 2025, verdict of a special court that sentenced him in a case related to the unlawful retention of state gifts. The petition argues that keeping him incarcerated while his appeal remains pending would amount to a “grave injustice.”
According to a PTI statement, the application maintains that the judgment has already been challenged on legal grounds and that suspension of the sentence until the appeal is decided is permissible under Pakistani law, particularly when serious legal questions have been raised against the conviction.
Khalid Yousaf Chaudhry, a member of Khan’s legal team, told The Media Line that, under the Constitution, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Prevention of Corruption Act, or the National Accountability Bureau’s regulations, these cases fundamentally could not have been filed against Khan. He said all cases registered against him fail to meet the legal definition of a crime. “When a case does not fulfill the definition of an offense, it cannot be validly instituted. Yet, in Imran Khan’s situation, this principle was ignored. Cases were filed without following the proper procedure, and courts were directed to hand down convictions,” he added. “The same situation applies to Khan’s wife, Bushra Bibi.”
When a case does not fulfill the definition of an offense, it cannot be validly instituted. Yet, in Imran Khan’s situation, this principle was ignored. Cases were filed without following the proper procedure, and courts were directed to hand down convictions.
The health dispute underpinning the suspension request has since accelerated into a fast-moving institutional clash, shifting the argument from whether Khan is receiving medical attention to whether the care is credible, independently verifiable, and free of political control.
The plea filed by Barrister Salman Safdar states that a specialist at the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences diagnosed severe damage to Khan’s right eye caused by a blood clot, leaving vision reduced to about 15% and requiring treatment that his lawyers argue cannot be adequately provided inside prison.
Safdar’s role has also become central to the public narrative. The Supreme Court designated him as amicus curiae to evaluate the former prime minister’s health and confinement conditions, and after meeting Khan at Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail, he warned the court that delayed medical attention had worsened the condition, intensifying the urgency of the legal challenge.
In the most recent development, a government-constituted team of ophthalmology specialists examined Khan inside Adiala Jail, after which official-linked reporting said the medical findings showed improvement in his eyesight. Khan’s family and PTI rejected that conclusion, arguing the process is unilateral and government-controlled and insisting he must not receive any treatment or be moved without the presence and approval of his personal doctors.
That dispute sharpened further when Khan’s personal physician said he could not verify claims of improvement because he had not been granted direct access to Khan, undercutting the government’s narrative at a moment when the medical assessment had become politically consequential.
Meanwhile, Khan’s sons moved to internationalize the access issue. Reports said they have sought visas to travel to Pakistan to visit him, citing alarm about his health and the prolonged restrictions on contact.
On the legal track, the effort to secure immediate relief is also facing friction. Local reporting said the Islamabad High Court registrar raised objections to the petition seeking suspension or bail on medical grounds, suggesting the application may face procedural delays before any substantive hearing.
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
These developments come after the Supreme Court directed authorities to arrange an immediate medical checkup for Khan and allow him to speak with his sons. Khan’s sister, Aleema Khan, stated on X that, following the chief justice’s directive, Khan was permitted to speak with his sons for approximately 20 minutes. She added that his sons said they were overjoyed to hear their father’s voice after such a prolonged separation.
Imprisoned since August 2023 on charges he denies, Khan, 73, has become the focal point of an escalating fight over detention conditions, the transparency of medical care in custody, and the judiciary’s role in policing the boundary between humanitarian safeguards and political conflict.
The Media Line spoke to legal and political analysts to shed light on the developing situation.
Pakistan’s Constitution and laws guarantee that every prisoner, whether an ordinary citizen or a former prime minister, has a fundamental right to medical care
Raja Tanveer Akhtar, a senior practitioner of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, told The Media Line that “Pakistan’s Constitution and laws guarantee that every prisoner, whether an ordinary citizen or a former prime minister, has a fundamental right to medical care.”
“In the case of Imran Khan, he was the architect of the Health Card program, ensuring that every Pakistani could access medical treatment worth up to 1 million rupees free of charge, directly benefiting millions of underprivileged citizens,” Akhtar noted. “Yet today, Khan himself is being systematically denied essential medical care.”
“This deliberate obstruction of care is an outrage, and history does not forgive such acts,” Akhtar added.
Akhtar further emphasized that “authorities must recognize the gravity of the situation and ensure that the country’s former prime minister, still one of Pakistan’s most popular leaders, receives immediate attention.”
“Failure to act could have consequences reminiscent of past tragedies—for example, the execution of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, which decades later was declared a judicial murder. Time cannot be allowed to slip away when the health and rights of a national leader are at stake,” he added.
Syed Jowdat Nadeem, a senior member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, told The Media Line, “The state must rise above political rivalry when it comes to basic human dignity. Imran Khan is in state custody; therefore, the state carries the responsibility to take care of him.”
He underlined that the government is fully accountable for the former prime minister’s physical well-being, adding, “Neglect—whether deliberate or due to indifference—would not only be unethical but unconstitutional.”
Nadeem noted that just as former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was granted freedom on medical grounds during his imprisonment, and as current President Asif Ali Zardari had consistently received timely medical care during his imprisonment, the same standard must be applied to Khan.
He emphasized, “Justice cannot change with political convenience. Acting justly is incumbent upon the state. Democracy is not measured by how we protect our allies; it is tested by how we uphold the rights of those we disagree with. Even in prison, even in opposition, even in political rivalry, access to health care remains an undeniable human right.”
Justice cannot change with political convenience. … Even in prison, even in opposition, even in political rivalry, access to health care remains an undeniable human right.
Dr. Ejaz Hussain, a Lahore-based civil–military relations scholar, told The Media Line that “unlike several other mainstream Pakistani politicians, Imran Khan has not expressed any desire to seek medical treatment abroad. Instead, he was adamant not to leave Pakistan even for treatment.”
Hussain noted that “given Khan’s political positioning, it appears unlikely he would opt for treatment overseas, as such a move could contradict his longstanding populist narrative.”
He further observed that “recent meetings between senior government officials and Khan’s party leaders have generated cautious optimism about easing tensions.”
“The appointment of a senator and a member of the national assembly nominated by Khan as leaders of the opposition,” Hussain underlined, “signals a possible political thaw and suggests a degree of pragmatic recalibration.”
Despite this evolving political context, Hussain emphasized that “on humanitarian grounds, however, Khan should be granted the right to consultation of his choice.”
As the dispute enters a new phase, attention is turning to what comes next: whether the Islamabad High Court moves quickly on the sentence-suspension plea, and whether any treatment plan or medical findings will be accepted as legitimate without independent access for doctors trusted by Khan’s family.
Steven Ganot contributed to this report.
