Dr Uzma Khan, the sister of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, on Wednesday filed a second contempt petition in the Supreme Court (SC), seeking proceedings against the federal government and senior officials for failing to implement the apex court's Aug 18 order regarding his transfer to Shifa International Hospital, family meetings and twice-weekly phone calls with his sons. The petition, filed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, named Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Islamabad Capital Territory Chief Commissioner Lt.
(retd) Sohail Ashraf, Interior and Narcotics Control Secretary Ahmed Raza Sarwar, Inspector General of Prisons Punjab Mian Salik Jalal and Adiala Jail Superintendent Sajid Baig as respondents. Dr Uzma requested the court to initiate contempt proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution, read with the Contempt of Court Ordinance, alleging "willful, deliberate and contumacious" disobedience of its Aug 18 order. She contended that the court had directed the authorities to arrange weekly meetings between Imran Khan and his family members, including herself, his sisters Noreen Niazi and Aleema Khan and cousin Qasim Zaman, as well as phone calls between him and his sons, Kasim Khan and Sulaiman Khan, twice a week.
According to the petition, however, the directions had been "blatantly violated". Dr Uzma claimed that during the 14 days following the order, authorities had allowed only two meetings between Imran Khan and one of his sisters, Noreen Niazi - on Aug 18 and Aug 25. She said none of his other family members, including herself, had been allowed to meet him since the order was passed.
She added that no family member was permitted to meet him on Sept 1 either. The petition further alleged that authorities had failed to arrange phone calls between Imran Khan and his sons who, according to Dr Uzma, had not been allowed to speak to their father since March. She termed the failure to implement the order a case of deliberate and wilful disobedience, interference with the judicial process and obstruction of the administration of justice.
The petitioner maintained that the first four respondents were primarily responsible for implementing the Supreme Court's directions and had failed to discharge their obligations, making them liable to contempt proceedings. She asked the apex court to issue notices to the respondents to show cause why they should not be proceeded against and punished for contempt, summon them for personal appearance and direct immediate implementation of the Aug 18 order.