Reports of former prime minister Imran Khan’s worsening eye condition have moved from political noise to a straightforward question of custodial responsibility. Courts and hospitals can disagree with parties and lawyers on narratives, but the state’s duty to protect the health of anyone in its custody is not optional.
Recent court proceedings have recorded claims that he has suffered major loss of vision in his right eye, prompting the Supreme Court to order a medical team to examine him. Accounts placed before the court also describe visible discomfort. Separately, official medical details attributed to Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences indicate that a qualified ophthalmologist assessed him, diagnosed right central retinal vein occlusion, and advised hospital-based follow-up treatment.
At the same time, his party has said he is suffering from a serious eye infection, and his family and party figures have demanded access to him, his medical records, and his personal doctors. A court in Rawalpindi has rejected a plea seeking treatment by personal doctors inside jail, showing that the issue is now being contested formally — which makes transparency and documentation even more important.
None of this requires endorsement of his politics, or commentary on the cases that put him behind bars. It requires the authorities to do what they would be expected to do for any prisoner: provide timely, competent treatment, allow appropriate specialist input, and ensure credible oversight. Prison rules and security protocols can apply, but they cannot be used to create avoidable doubt around medical care — especially when senior courts are already seized of the matter.
This is also a matter of public order and institutional prudence. He continues to command support, as seen in political mobilisation and demands framed around his medical access. In a polarised environment, an unresolved health controversy inside custody can quickly become a broader flashpoint. Preventing that does not mean treating him as a political exception; it means treating him as a legal standard.
Finally, the broader context cannot be ignored: he remains on the wrong side of Pakistan’s power structure, and this shapes perceptions of every development around him. The government does not have to appear sympathetic to him to meet basic human-rights obligations. It simply has to ensure he receives the treatment he needs, promptly, with clear records and court-visible accountability.
