Two days before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a contempt petition against the prime minister and others over the alleged non-implementation of its August 18 order regarding shifting of former prime minister Imran Khan to Shifa Hospital, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) will hear appeals filed by three prisoners of Adiala jail seeking treatment at private hospitals. The prisoners have challenged an Islamabad High Court (IHC) order under which their pleas seeking treatment at private hospitals, similar to the relief granted to Imran Khan, were rejected. A three-member FCC bench headed by Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi will hear the appeals on September 14, the first day of the new judicial year for the Supreme Court and the FCC. Interestingly, all three members of the bench belong to Punjab. The FCC matters are ordinarily heard by division benches, but the appeals have been fixed before a three-member bench. The development assumes significance as the same number of judges is hearing a petition filed by Imran Khan's sister, Uzma Khan, seeking the transfer of her brother to Shifa International Hospital. A three-member Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Shahid Waheed and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim is scheduled to hear the matter on September 16. Lawyers believe the outcome of the FCC proceedings could have a bearing on the proceedings concerning Imran Khan before the Supreme Court. Under Article 175E of the Constitution, the FCC may, on its own motion or otherwise, if it considers that a case involves a substantial question of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution, call for the record of any case pending before any court and make such order in the case as it deems appropriate. In view of this constitutional provision, the FCC may also summon a case pending before the SC. In several judgments, the FCC has held that its decisions are binding on all courts, including the Supreme Court. It has also clarified that, following the 27th Constitutional Amendment, the Supreme Court no longer has the authority to interpret the Constitution and the law in matters falling within the FCC's constitutional jurisdiction. In the Riaz Hussain case, FCC Justice Rozi Khan Barrech observed that Article 189 of the Constitution stipulates that any decision of the Supreme Court that decides a question of law or enunciates a principle of law is binding on all other courts in Pakistan, with the exception of the FCC. The exception, according to the judgment, arises from the 27th Amendment, which provides that decisions of the FCC are binding on all courts in Pakistan, including the Supreme Court itself. Consequently, all courts are constitutionally required to follow FCC judgments. Similarly, FCC Justice KK Agha held in a separate judgment that although Supreme Court decisions are not binding on the FCC under Article 189, the FCC may treat them as having persuasive value or as constituting obiter dicta, which it may or may not choose to follow. FCC Justice Aamer Farooq has also observed that Article 189 makes Supreme Court decisions binding on all courts subordinate to it, including the high courts. At the same time, decisions of the FCC are binding on every court in the country, including the Supreme Court and high courts. The fixing of the prisoners' appeals has also triggered questions among lawyers as to why the petitioners did not first file intra-court appeals (ICAs) before the IHC against the single-bench order and instead approached the FCC directly, which fixed the matter for hearing on the very first working day after the summer vacations. Former additional attorney general Waqar Rana said an ICA was a remedy available to a party, but filing an ICA was not necessarily a condition that had to be fulfilled in every case before approaching a higher court. However, he said that where two courts or forums have jurisdiction at the same time, the general principle of judicial priority was that the higher court should ordinarily avoid exercising its jurisdiction if the matter was already being properly dealt with by the lower forum, unless there was a special reason to intervene. Lawyers have also questioned how the prisoners' case was decided by the IHC so expeditiously and why the FCC subsequently listed the appeals immediately after the summer recess. The FCC judges are also facing what some lawyers describe as a "battle of perception", particularly because they were appointed by the federal government, which is expected to be the primary litigant before the court in several politically sensitive matters. The FCC has already entertained two petitions involving the PTI: one challenging the formation of the "release force" announced by PTI founder Imran Khan and another challenging the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa government's decision to withdraw cases relating to the May 9 riots. Interestingly, the FCC granted interim relief to the petitioners in both cases. While hearing the petition against the alleged formation of an "Imran Khan release force" on April 1, the FCC restrained K-P Chief Minister Sohail Afridi and others from taking any action in violation of the law or Constitution. The court warned in its order that any act in violation of any provision of law or the Constitution would have consequences, and that persons bound to preserve and protect the Constitution were required to take every action in accordance with law. Earlier, political parties had also raised concerns over the absence of representation from every province on benches hearing constitutional matters. Despite a pendency of around 23,000 cases, only seven judges are currently serving in the FCC.