The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday sought the Attorney General for Pakistan’s (AGP) assistance on whether the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) could exercise jurisdiction over a matter concerning the SC’s August 18 order directing the transfer of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan from Adiala Jail to Shifa International Hospital for treatment. The three-member SC bench summoned AGP Mansoor Usman Awan to assist it on the jurisdictional question. He told the court that “one jurisdiction cannot be exercised by two superior courts”, while Justice Shahid Waheed said the bench would examine whether the FCC’s order was binding on the SC. The issue arose during the hearing of a contempt petition against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and others over the alleged failure to implement the direction concerning Imran’s transfer. On Tuesday, the FCC, while hearing petitions filed by three Adiala Jail prisoners seeking treatment at private hospitals, summoned the complete record of cases concerning Imran’s transfer from Adiala Jail to Shifa International Hospital from the SC. It also sought records of similar cases from the high courts. The FCC invoked Article 175-E of the Constitution and said it would frame constitutional questions for final determination. At Wednesday’s hearing, the attorney general said Article 175-E(5) should be interpreted rather than the questions identified by the FCC being raised. Article 175-E(5) empowers the FCC to call for the record of any case pending before any court if it considers that the matter involves a substantial question of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution. Read More: FCC summons Imran Khan's hospital transfer case record from SC Justice Shahid said questions under Article 10-A, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process, also arose in both criminal and civil cases. He said the SC wanted to understand the intention behind the constitutional provisions and stressed the importance of mutual respect between the two judicial forums. The judge also raised questions concerning the Quran and Sunnah, saying matters relating to them fell within the jurisdiction of the SC’s Shariat Bench. He said a decision by the SC concerning the Quran and Sunnah would also apply to the FCC. “The Constitution has given the Supreme Court, not the FCC, the right to interpret under the Quran and Sunnah,” Justice Shahid said. The attorney general replied that Article 189 dealt with the application of judgments and that the SC’s Shariat Bench had the power to interpret the Quran and Sunnah. Justice Shahid asked whether the SC should delist the cases or pass an order, while the attorney general suggested deferring the hearing until the FCC had determined the questions before it. “There is no ambiguity; the Supreme Court’s August 18 order remains in force,” the attorney general said. The attorney general described the situation as unprecedented, saying it was the first time such a matter had arisen before the courts. He said the constitutional jurisdictions of the FCC and SC had been clearly laid out and that he would assist the bench in determining how to proceed with the cases pending before the SC. He added that the FCC and SC could not exercise jurisdiction over the same matter simultaneously. The bench, however, said it did not want any contradiction between the two highest judicial forums. Justice Shahid said the questions raised by the FCC needed to be understood in the context of the constitutional framework, adding that the judiciary believed in mutual respect. Also Read: FCC raises questions over SC August 18 order Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan said the objection to the August 18 order had been raised when the order was being dictated at the conclusion of the proceedings. He stressed that both the SC and FCC were superior judicial forums. “There is no fight between the two superior judicial forums,” Justice Afghan said, adding that both forums would remain and had their respective jurisdictions. The bench also questioned the government’s implementation of the August 18 order, noting that Adiala Jail officials summoned by the SC had not appeared. The attorney general said the officials should have appeared and sought an opportunity to explain their absence. Justice Shahid questioned whether warrants should be issued for the jail superintendent. The bench, however, decided to set aside the issue of Imran’s transfer between a private and government hospital for the time being. “Let us leave aside for now the issue of transferring the PTI founder from a private hospital to a government hospital,” Justice Shahid said. Instead, he asked the attorney general to explain what had happened regarding meetings with Khan and telephone conversations with his daughters. Dr Uzma told the court that only two meetings had been facilitated under the SC’s order. The attorney general said he would check the details. “We are not in a hurry; let us hear the AGP’s response,” Justice Shahid said. The bench also noted that the attorney general had acknowledged that the SC’s August 18 order remained in force. “In any case, the AGP has said our order is in the field,” Justice Shahid observed. The matter was adjourned for further consideration of the jurisdictional questions and the government’s response. FCC orders case records The FCC, on Tuesday, issued the order while hearing petitions filed after the Islamabad High Court dismissed pleas seeking private-hospital treatment and other relief for inmates, including Imran. The FCC invoked Article 175-E(5) of the Constitution and directed that records of several cases pending before the SC be requisitioned and the cases fixed before it. The FCC identified questions concerning which court had jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights, the rights of prisoners under the Constitution and Prison Rules 1978, the state’s obligations towards prisoners and the consequences of violations of prisoners’ fundamental rights. The August 18 order had directed the government to shift Khan from Adiala Jail to Shifa International Hospital within two days for medical examination and treatment. The court had also directed the government to facilitate regular meetings between Khan and his family and telephone conversations with his sons. After the order, three Adiala Jail inmates approached the IHC seeking treatment at private hospitals and telephone contact with their families abroad. The IHC dismissed their petitions on August 31, holding that the SC’s order was interim. Instead of filing intra-court appeals, the petitioners approached the FCC on September 8. The FCC admitted the appeals and, during Tuesday’s hearing, considered whether the SC had jurisdiction over cases involving constitutional interpretation and fundamental rights. The attorney general had told the FCC that the SC passed its August 18 order without first giving the government notice. He also said Article 175-E(5) allowed the FCC to call for the record of any case pending before any court where a question concerning constitutional interpretation was involved. The FCC subsequently directed the SC registrar to requisition the records of several cases pending before the apex court and fix them along with the FCC appeals.