Pakistan Court Allows Lawyer to Meet Imran Khan in Jail
Pakistan's Supreme Court permits lawyer to meet Imran Khan in jail.
Photo by Ye Jinghan
Key Facts
Pakistan's Supreme Court allowed Salman Safdar to meet Imran Khan.
Salman Safdar is a lawyer of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party.
The meeting is to assess Imran Khan's living conditions in jail.
This is the first meeting with Imran Khan since December 2.
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper II: Polity and Governance - Fundamental Rights, Constitutional Provisions, Judiciary
GS Paper II: International Relations - Role of International Organizations in Human Rights
Potential question types: Statement-based, analytical questions on prisoner rights and judicial interventions
Visual Insights
Imran Khan's Legal Battles and Rule of Law in Pakistan
Timeline of key events related to Imran Khan's legal challenges and their implications for the rule of law in Pakistan.
This timeline highlights the recent political turmoil in Pakistan and the legal challenges faced by Imran Khan. The Supreme Court's decision is significant in the context of ensuring due process and the rule of law.
- 2018Imran Khan becomes Prime Minister of Pakistan
- 2022Imran Khan is ousted from power in a no-confidence vote
- 2023Imran Khan is arrested on corruption charges
- December 2025Last meeting with Imran Khan before recent court order.
- February 2026Pakistan's Supreme Court allows lawyer to meet Imran Khan in jail and submit a report about his “living conditions”.
More Information
Background
Latest Developments
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What are the key facts about the Pakistan court allowing a lawyer to meet Imran Khan, relevant for UPSC Prelims?
The key facts are that Pakistan's Supreme Court allowed Salman Safdar, a lawyer from Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, to meet Imran Khan in jail. This is the first meeting since December 2 and is to assess Imran Khan's living conditions.
2. What related concepts are important to understand the news about Imran Khan's jail visit?
Understanding the news requires knowledge of the Rule of Law, which ensures everyone is subject to and accountable to the law. Also, Judicial Review, which allows courts to examine the actions of the executive and legislative branches, and Due Process, which guarantees fair treatment through the normal judicial system, are important.
3. Why is the Pakistan court's decision to allow a lawyer to meet Imran Khan in jail in the news recently?
This is in the news because it raises questions about fundamental rights and due process for incarcerated individuals. It is the first meeting with Mr. Khan since December 2, highlighting concerns about access to legal counsel.
4. How does this news about Imran Khan relate to the concept of 'Rule of Law'?
The 'Rule of Law' implies that everyone, including former Prime Ministers, is subject to the law and entitled to due process. Allowing a lawyer to meet with Imran Khan ensures that he has access to legal counsel, which is a key component of the Rule of Law.
5. From an ethical perspective, what are the implications of restricting access to legal counsel for prisoners, as might be inferred from the delay in allowing Imran Khan to meet his lawyer?
Restricting access to legal counsel can undermine the principles of justice and fairness. It can lead to potential human rights violations and erode public trust in the legal system. Ensuring access to lawyers is crucial for upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring a fair trial.
6. What is the significance of the date December 2 in the context of this news?
December 2 is significant because it marks the last time Imran Khan had a meeting with anyone before the recent court order allowing his lawyer to visit. This highlights the prolonged period of restricted access.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding Article 22 of the Indian Constitution: 1. It provides protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. 2. It guarantees the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of one's choice. 3. It allows preventive detention for a period exceeding three months without consulting an advisory board. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statement 1 is CORRECT: Article 22 provides protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. Statement 2 is CORRECT: It guarantees the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of one's choice. Statement 3 is INCORRECT: Article 22(4) (a) allows preventive detention for a period NOT exceeding three months without consulting an advisory board. If detention is to be extended beyond three months, the case must be referred to an advisory board.
2. Which of the following statements is NOT correct regarding the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)? A) It is a statutory body established in 1993. B) The Chairperson must be a retired Chief Justice of India. C) It can directly take cognizance of human rights violations in prisons. D) Its recommendations are binding on the government.
- A.It is a statutory body established in 1993.
- B.The Chairperson must be a retired Chief Justice of India.
- C.It can directly take cognizance of human rights violations in prisons.
- D.Its recommendations are binding on the government.
Show Answer
Answer: D
Options A, B, and C are correct. The NHRC is a statutory body established in 1993. The Chairperson must be a retired Chief Justice of India. It can directly take cognizance of human rights violations in prisons. Option D is INCORRECT: The recommendations of the NHRC are NOT binding on the government. The government is expected to consider them, but it is not legally obligated to implement them.
3. In the context of prisoner rights, the Supreme Court has emphasized which of the following? 1. Prisoners retain all fundamental rights except those specifically restricted by law. 2. Access to legal aid is a crucial component of fair trial even for prisoners. 3. Prison authorities have absolute discretion in regulating prisoner's communication with the outside world. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statement 1 is CORRECT: The Supreme Court has held that prisoners retain all fundamental rights except those specifically restricted by law. Statement 2 is CORRECT: Access to legal aid is considered a crucial component of fair trial, even for prisoners. Statement 3 is INCORRECT: Prison authorities do NOT have absolute discretion. Their powers are subject to judicial review and must be exercised reasonably and fairly.
Source Articles
Lawyer of Imran Khan's party meets him in jail, says ex-premier fine and healthy - The Hindu
Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea seeking guidelines on suspension, blocking of social media accounts - The Hindu
Apex court’s directions for giving grounds of arrest in writing to accused is not applicable for offences under IPC or KCOCA: Karnataka High Court - The Hindu
Not judiciary’s job to strengthen or weaken the government or the Opposition: Justice Kaul - The Hindu
Supreme Court asks what’s wrong if country using Pegasus against ‘anti-nationals’, agrees to examine if private citizens were hacked - The Hindu