The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has reinstated biweekly meetings for former Prime Minister and PTI founding chairman Imran Khan at Adiala Jail, while also barring visitors from making political statements after these meetings.
The ruling, issued on Monday, allows Imran to meet his family and lawyers on Tuesdays and friends on Thursdays.
However, only individuals approved by Imran’s coordinator, lawyer Salman Akram Raja, will be permitted to visit.
During the hearing, the court raised concerns over jail meetings being used for political messaging.
Acting Chief Justice Sarfaraz Dogar emphasized that visitors should “meet and leave” without engaging in media discussions.
To enforce this, the court ordered all visitors to sign an undertaking agreeing not to make public statements after their meetings.
Jail authorities defended their previous decision to combine meetings into one day instead of two, citing security threats.
However, the court rejected this argument, reaffirming its earlier ruling that Imran was entitled to biweekly meetings.
Imran’s legal team argued that scheduled meetings had been randomly denied. Lawyer Zaheer Abbas highlighted that despite making proper requests, a scheduled visit on March 20 did not take place.
Justice Dogar directed Imran’s legal team to approach the trial court separately if they sought permission for his children to visit.
This decision comes as Imran continues to battle multiple legal cases following his conviction on corruption charges in January.
His status changed from under-trial to convicted prisoner, impacting his jail privileges.
While jail authorities insist that limiting visits is necessary for security reasons, the court stressed that political discussions should not take place during or after meetings.
Imran’s legal team assured compliance with these restrictions, allowing his biweekly meetings to resume.
The ruling grants some relief to Imran Khan’s supporters and legal team, enabling them to meet him twice a week. However, any violation of the media gag order could lead to further legal consequences.
The decision reflects the judiciary’s effort to balance his visitation rights while preventing jail meetings from turning into political platforms.