The Islamabad High Court has sought a response from Asad Warraich, the Superintendent of Adiala Jail, regarding a petition filed by PTI leaders protesting a two-week ban on public visits and meetings at the facility.
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan is currently held at Adiala Jail where a ban on the public visits and meetings has been imposed by the Punjab home department on March 12, citing security concerns as the reason behind the restriction.
PTI leaders criticized the move, alleging it was a deliberate attempt to prevent them from meeting Imran Khan.
Following PTI MNA Sher Afzal Marwat’s plea against the ban, the Islamabad High Court sought clarification from the jail superintendent.
Marwat later confirmed the court’s decision to permit online interactions with Imran Khan, praising the move as a positive development.
During today’s hearing, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq raised questions regarding the inconsistency in allowing online meetings at Kot Lakhpat jail, as announced by Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz, while denying the same at Adiala Jail.
The superintendent cited existing rules as the reason for not permitting online meetings.
The court expressed confusion over the legality of online meetings, considering the differing stances between the Punjab government’s announcement and the jail authorities’ adherence to rules. The state counsel requested more time to seek clarification.
Justice Ishaq emphasized the urgency of resolving the matter, particularly regarding the permissibility of political conversations during jail meetings. He noted that if the court concluded that such conversations were allowed, an amendment to the rules would be necessary.
The superintendent informed the court that the ban on meetings at Adiala Jail since March 12 was due to security alerts, which also applied to three other prisons. Justice Ishaq questioned the rationale behind the ban, especially in light of upcoming events like the March 23 parade.
The court adjourned the hearing until March 29, seeking a clear stance from the state counsel regarding the legality of online meetings, considering the discrepancy between announcements and existing rules.
