The Islamabad High Court on Friday sought a response from Adiala Jail Superintendent Asad Warraich on a petition filed by PTI leaders against a two-week ban on all public visits and meetings at the prison, where ex-premier Imran Khan is incarcerated.

On March 12, the Punjab home department had banned all public meetings, visits and interviews at the jail, citing “security” threats. The move had been decried by PTI leaders, who deemed it a deliberate plan to stop them from meeting Imran.

The next day, hearing PTI MNA Sher Afzal Marwat’s plea against the ban, the IHC had sought a reply from the jail superintendent on the matter.

A day later, Marwat had confirmed the IHC’s decision to allow online interactions with Imran, praising the court’s “excellent development” in allowing video conferences for those who are incarcerated.

Today, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq took up the petitions, including one filed by Marwat, who also appeared before the court. State counsel Abdul Rehman was present on behalf of Warraich.

The judge wondered how online meetings could be allowed at the Kot Lakhpat jail but not at the Adiala jail if, according to the superintendent, the rules did not permit them.

He sought a “clear stance” from Warraich on the legality of online meetings of prisoners by the next hearing on March 29.

The hearing

At the outset of the hearing, Warraich refused to allow online meetings with Imran, stating that they were not allowed under the rules.

The court then cited reports regarding Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz announcing the facility of online meetings at Kot Lakhpat jail. “The chief minister has proudly said that it is Asia’s first jail where this facility is being provided,” the judge remarked.

He wondered how the “illegal” move was taken by Maryam when the jail rules did not allow it. The superintendent replied that a letter had been written to the Punjab government to amend the jail rules.

“Are the jail authorities saying in their response that the Punjab CM’s step was illegal?” Justice Ishaq asked. “You are saying that the court order cannot be implemented and an amendment is needed,” he added.

Here, the state counsel asked for more time to “seek further directives”.

The court then said there was “no need” to seek directives as according to the jail superintendent, the jail rules did not permit online meetings.

“The same government barred online meetings without an amendment [in the jail rules] while it proudly did the same in another jail,” the judge noted.

Here, court assistant lawyer Zainab Janjua said that the superintendent’s stance should not be contradictory to the Punjab government’s.

Justice Ishaq further observed that the court had to settle the matter soon, noting that the question now was whether political conversations could be held during jail meetings or not.

“If we reach the conclusion that political conversations can be held, then an amendment would be needed. Let this matter be solved. Online meetings cannot be prevented now,” the judge said.

“If we would say that we cannot hold online meetings, the entire world would joke about it,” he remarked.

Here, Marwat said, “We are stopped 1.5 kilometres away from the jail and sent onward on foot.”

Justice Ishaq went on to say, “We are also doing a drama over here. Everyone knows what is happening. If the orders stop coming to the jail authorities from where they are [coming from], then all of this would end.”

“If 200 senior civil officers in the country refuse to abide unlawful orders then the entire system would be corrected,” the judge said. To this, Marwat replied, “If the court sends 200 civil servants to jail, even then there could be an improvement.”

Justice Ishaq then said, “At one place, there is a written paper and at another, there is a gun pointed at his head. On the other hand, there is a threat to his family and career.

“Unless 200-300 give sacrifice for an ideology, things will remain the same,” he added. The judge expressed his surprise when Marwat said a pen wielded more power than a gun.

Justice Ishaq then ordered the state counsel to adopt a “clear stance” at the next hearing.

Here, the jail superintendent informed the court that the meetings at Adiala Jail had not been allowed since March 12 due to “threat alerts”, adding that the same ban had been placed at three other prisons as well.

The judge then asked Warraich, “Are you at a greater risk at the jail?” He noted that a “huge march” would be taking place the next day — presumably referring to the March 23 parade. “Is there no threat to it?” he asked.

“Tomorrow, thousands of people will be on the streets [and] jets would fly. Is there not a threat to them?” the judge asked.

Justice Ishaq observed, “I do not see good intentions that there is a threat over there (Adiala) but not here (Islamabad).”

The state counsel then reiterated that he would “seek new directives after the developments of Kot Lakhpat jail”.

“I am unable to understand how can online meetings be legal at one jail and illegal at another,” Justice Ishaq remarked.

He then sought a response from the state counsel on behalf of the jail superintendent on whether Maryam’s announcement of online meetings was illegal or the jail authorities’ response stating that jail rules did not permit such meetings.

Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned till March 29.