Justice Muhammad Asif issued separate written judgments after reserving the verdict on August 27 on petitions filed by prisoners Owais Altaf, Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Muhammad Ismail Hussain, holding that imprisonment restricted a person’s liberty in accordance with the law but did not create a right to every facility of choice.

The petitions assumed significance after the Supreme Court (SC) on Aug 18 directed the authorities to transfer PTI founder Imran Khan to Shifa International Hospital for medical examination and treatment. The three prisoners subsequently approached the IHC seeking similar relief.

Altaf and Ilyas had sought permission to obtain treatment at private hospitals, claiming that the required medical facilities were not available within the government hospital system. Meanwhile, Hussain sought permission to communicate with his brother living abroad through WhatsApp.

During the hearing, the petitioners’ counsel argued that one of the prisoners was suffering from a serious bleeding disorder and had developed internal bleeding in the large intestine, which could become life-threatening. He said that the prisoner had remained incarcerated for around six months and had repeatedly been taken to the hospital.

In its written order, the IHC held that imprisonment meant restrictions on freedom according to law, and that “every technical facility cannot be declared a fundamental right”. A prisoner, it said, has no legal right to be transferred to a private hospital of his choice.

The court observed that the primary responsibility for prisoners’ treatment rested with the state’s administrative structure and government hospitals. It said that Rule 197 of the Pakistan Prison Rules provides a mechanism for moving a prisoner to a hospital outside the facility where necessary.

“However, where treatment is not possible at a government hospital, the authorities can consider transferring a prisoner to a private medical facility on the recommendation of a medical board,” the court ruled.

The IHC also considered the petitioners’ reliance on the SC’s order concerning Imran. It observed that there was no doubt that SC decisions were binding on the High Courts, but noted that the Aug 18 directions were interim in nature and the matter referred to by the petitioners was still pending before the SC.

The interim order, therefore, could not be treated as a final decision creating a general legal right for every prisoner to seek treatment at a private hospital of their own choice, the IHC held.

The court directed the jail administration to continue providing all necessary medical facilities to the prisoners in accordance with law.

The court also dismissed the petition regarding Hussain’s request to communicate with his brother abroad through WhatsApp. It noted that the petitioner had failed to establish that the jail administration’s Aug 2 order was illegal or that his fundamental rights had been violated.

The court, however, observed that if WhatsApp, video calls or any other lawful means of communication were available to prisoners, the competent authorities could consider such requests in accordance with prison discipline, security requirements and the Pakistan Prison Rules 1978.

During the hearing, the Punjab Advocate General Barrister Zafarullah had maintained that the authorities would act strictly in accordance with the law and prison rules. Islamabad’s Advocate General Naveed Hayat Malik and jail authorities also appeared before the court.

Pezeshkian welcomed PM Shehbaz in Bishkek for his three-day official visit from Aug 31 to Sep 2 and the two leaders held a meeting, the PMO said on X.

Earlier, the prime minister reached the Kyrgyz Republic on a three-day official visit, from Aug 31 to Sept 2, at the invitation of President Sadyr Nurgozhoevich Zhaparov to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Council of Heads of State meeting.

Adylbek Kasymaliev, chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers, welcomed PM Shehbaz upon his arrival at Manas International Airport, the government’s official account on social media platform X stated.

Announcing the premier’s departure, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) said he would address the SCO summit and “present Pakistan’s stance on various regional and global issues”.

It added that Minister of Commerce Jam Kamal Khan, Minister of Communications Abdul Aleem Khan, and Minister of Information and Broadcasting Attaullah Tarar were accompanying PM Shehbaz.

Earlier in the day, the Foreign Office had issued a statement on PM Shehbaz’s visit, saying that it would include participation in the SCO Council of Heads of State meeting, as well as bilateral engagements in the Kyrgyz Republic.

“During his stay in Bishkek, the prime minister will participate in the meeting of the SCO Council of Heads of State and the SCO Plus Summit,” the statement said.

“The prime minister will also assume Pakistan’s chairmanship of the SCO Council of Heads of State for 2026-2027,” it said, adding that he would also hold bilateral meetings with the leaders of the participating countries on the sidelines.

PM Shehbaz will also participate in the opening ceremony of the World Nomad Games on Aug 31, the statement said.

It added that on Sept 2, the prime minister would hold bilateral discussions with the Kyrgyz president on the “entire spectrum of Pakistan-Kyrgyzstan relations”.

“The two sides will comprehensively review Pakistan-Kyrgyzstan relations and discuss ways to further deepen bilateral cooperation, particularly in trade and investment, energy, regional connectivity, education, tourism, and people-to-people exchanges,” it said.

“The leaders will also exchange views on regional and international developments of mutual interest and cooperation at regional and multilateral fora,” it added.

“Pakistan and Kyrgyzstan enjoy warm and fraternal relations, rooted in shared history, faith and cultural affinity, as well as common aspirations for peace, connectivity and prosperity in Central and South Asia,” the FO said.

“The forthcoming visit will provide an important opportunity to consolidate the momentum generated by recent high-level exchanges, translate political goodwill into enhanced practical cooperation, and further strengthen the enduring partnership between Pakistan and the Kyrgyz Republic,” the statement concluded.

Around a dozen world leaders will head to Bishkek to mark 25 years of the SCO, which comprises 10 member states: India, Iran, China, Pakistan, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The two observer states are Afghanistan and Mongolia.

Pakistan is set to assume the chairmanship of the SCO’s Council of Heads of State, while next year’s CHS summit will also be hosted by Islamabad.

He made the announcement while addressing a press conference following the first meeting of the Strategic Political and Defence Committee, established under the agreement, held in Istanbul.

Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, and Defence Minister Khawaja Asif represented Pakistan at the meeting.

Foreign and defence ministers of the three countries, as well as top military officials, gathered for a family photo ahead of the meeting in Istanbul’s Ciragan Palace.

In his press conference, Fidan said his country hosted the first meeting of the Strategic Political and Defence Committee on Monday.

He said the meeting was held “in relation to the concrete steps that are going to be taken for the implementation of the agreement” and an exchange of views was held for that purpose.

“As of today, we have started the process of establishing the institutional structure of the alliance,” Fidan said, announcing that the agreement’s official name will be “Makkah Defence Alliance”.

“There is a secretariat that has been established in Riyadh, and the first secretary general will be appointed amongst our Pakistani brothers,” he said.

He said that during the meeting, decisions were taken on “how and when to begin institutionalisation and all our brothers expressed views during the meeting”.

Fidan hoped that decisions taken in the meeting will yield “excellent results”.

“For the future of a secure, stable and prosperous region, this alliance is based on international principles such as respecting the sovereignty of other states, territorial integrity and not intervening in internal affairs,” he said, adding that the alliance was not against any country.

He maintained that the alliance was “open for the partnership and participation of any other country”. However, Fidan stressed that while the alliance was open, “there are some conditions, rules and standards”, adding that the alliance’s nature was such that it was “expected to expand”.

Stressing the need for institutionalisation of the alliance, he said: “If an ally wants to join, the alliance should be functional in a proper manner by then.”

He added that the alliance did not “eliminate our countries’ responsibilities to other agreements or alliances”. Fidan hoped that with Monday’s meeting, the three countries had demonstrated readiness to take responsibility for the security and stability of the region.

“We will closely cooperate with friendly countries, and we will continue coordinating our efforts,” he said. Fidan also noted that the lack of “alliances and trust” between regional countries had given rise to security problems.

Inaugural meeting of ‘Makkah Defence Alliance’

The Foreign Office (FO) also confirmed the development in a post on its X account.

It added that DPM Dar, CDF Munir, and Defence Minister Asif represented Pakistan at the meeting.

According to Anadolu Agency, Fidan, National Defence Minister Yasar Guler and Chief of General Staff General Selcuk Bayraktaroglu represented Turkiye at the meeting.

Representing Saudi Arabia, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan, Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman and Chief of General Staff General Fayyadh bin Hamed Al-Ruwaili attended the meeting.

Anadolu Agency also shared a video showing the participants seated in a hall, with Fidan seated in the middle.

The clip showed Fidan greeting Dar, CDF Munir and others at the venue.

Meanwhile, DPM Dar, in a post on X, said, “A great inaugural meeting today of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkiye in Istanbul after signing of ‘Makkah Joint Defence Agreement’ on August 7, 2026 in Makkah Mukaramma”.

In a statement issued on Sunday, FO said the meeting will comprise the Strategic Political and Defence Committee established under the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement.

“Pakistan’s participation in the meeting signifies Pakistan’s historic bonds of friendship with the brotherly countries of Turkiye and Saudi Arabia, as well as its desire for lasting regional peace and stability,” the FO said.

The maiden ministerial meeting under the Makkah pact is being seen as the first step towards establishing a framework for trilateral strategic and defence cooperation.

According to an AFP report, the participants plan to address boosting defence capabilities, the interoperability of their armed forces, and their cooperation in the defence industry.

Meanwhile, TRT reported that the meeting is expected to outline the framework for a secretariat and other relevant mechanisms, as well as establish a roadmap for steps to be taken in the coming period.

The joint defence pact signed on August 7 empowers the member states to treat an attack against one of them as an attack against all of them.

Bilateral meetings

Ahead of the trilateral pact’s inaugural moot, the signatories held multiple bilateral meetings in Istanbul.

CDF Munir met Turkish National Defence Minister Yaşar Güler ahead of the first meeting under the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement in Istanbul.

In a post on the social media platform X, the Turkish Ministry of National Defence shared a video of CDF Munir meeting Güler.

The Turkish minister also held a separate meeting with Asif, with Chief of General Staff General Selçuk Bayraktaroğlu in attendance.

According to Radio Pakistan, Asif and the Turkish leadership agreed to enhance joint defence cooperation in the region.

Meanwhile, Turkiye’s foreign minister met his Saudi counterpart on the margins of the trilateral moot.

Fidan had already held a meeting with Dar on Sunday. Both the deputy premier and the army chief had arrived in Turkiye a day earlier.

Water and the IWT remain a contentious issue between India and Pakistan, following New Delhi’s unilateral abeyance of the accord in April last year — a move that was followed by a brief military conflict between the two sides in May 2025.

Following India’s move, Pakistan termed any attempt to suspend its water share an “act of war”, noting the IWT had no provision for unilateral suspension. It later argued that Delhi’s action was a violation of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

In its order, the PCA backed Pakistan’s stance, declaring that the IWT between the two countries remained fully in force, as India had no justification for ending or suspending the agreement.

The Hague-based court issued an award on the status of the IWT “in respect of India’s decision on abeyance” and an order on Pakistan’s application dated March 4 regarding “interim measures” concerning the Ratle hydro-electric plant.

In a press release detailing its ruling, the PCA said it “examined the potential grounds upon which India could suspend or terminate the treaty, including the grounds cited by India in its public statements”.

“In a unanimous decision, the court found that none of these grounds could justify suspension or termination of the treaty.”

It declared that the IWT “remains fully in force, and India must observe its obligations under the treaty, including those relating to the design and operation of its hydro-electric projects on the Western Rivers”.

The IWT allocates the eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas and Sutlej — to India, while the western rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — are largely allocated to Pakistan. The 1960 water-sharing agreement has also established mechanisms for data-sharing and dispute resolution.

During the proceedings, Pakistan requested the court to address the “design of certain components of the run-of-river hydro-electric projects that India is permitted by the IWT to construct on the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers and their tributaries (“western rivers”), before those rivers flow into Pakistan”, the PCA statement said.

The proceedings in the interim measures’ application concerned India’s Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant (KHEP) and the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant (RHEP).

The court noted that the Kishenganga and Ratle plants were “also the subject of proceedings” before a World Bank-appointed neutral expert, who is expected to issue a final decision in July 2027 on whether they were in line with the IWT.

In its order, the PCA unanimously decided to “impose measures prohibiting India from concreting the RHEP dam wall and power intake structure above certain levels until 90 days after the neutral expert’s final decision”.

The court also imposed a reporting measure relating to the RHEP Construction Schedule until shortly after the neutral expert’s final decision. It declined to grant two other measures requested by Pakistan.

The PCA noted that the IWT “does not provide for one party to terminate or suspend the operation of the treaty, or for ‘abeyance’”. The IWT provides that it will remain in force unless modified or terminated by India and Pakistan acting together through adoption of a further treaty.

The Court of Arbitration was chaired by Professor Sean D. Murphy of the United States. The other members were Professor Wouter Buytaert of Belgium, Professor Jeffrey P. Minear of the United States, Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh of Jordan, and Dr Donald Blackmore of Australia.

While India did not participate by making written or oral submissions in response to Pakistan’s application, the PCA sought to consider India’s positions on the matters “to the extent they could be discerned from India’s statements and conduct outside of these proceedings (including Indian government communications to Pakistan and to the neutral expert, and public statements made by Indian officials)”.

India has no ground to suspend IWT

The PCA examined possible grounds for India’s action outside the treaty — ie under customary international law rules — but found that “there is no rule allowing a state to unilaterally terminate or suspend the operation of a treaty based on its ‘sovereignty’”, as argued by India.

The court considered several potential arguments based on India’s statements, but found that they did not justify New Delhi’s actions to suspend the IWT.

It identified three of the “few, highly restricted grounds” upon which a state could unilaterally terminate or suspend the operation of a treaty: material breach of the pact by a party, fundamental change of circumstances, and effect of armed conflict.

On India’s claim that Pakistan had violated the IWT’s “cooperative spirit” by failing to enter into negotiations to modify the treaty, the court found that “no provision of the treaty obliged Pakistan to enter into such” discussions and therefore, this cannot be a material breach of the IWT.

In fact, after examining the correspondence between the two governments, the court said it “found that Pakistan had been willing to discuss with India the issue of treaty modifications”.

On India’s allegations of cross-border terrorism, which New Delhi had cited while unilaterally suspending the IWT last year, the PCA observed that the treaty “does not address terrorism or the use of force and expressly indicates that it governs only” the rights and obligations regarding the Indus waters.

The court said it “did not find evidence that the alleged terrorism had impeded India’s ability to construct its HEPs on the western rivers and instead noted that India has built and is building many such HEPs, including in recent years”.

“Even if India’s allegation was assumed to be true, they would not establish a material breach of the treaty by Pakistan,” it said.

Regarding possible fundamental change of circumstances, the court considered India’s arguments of “(1) demographic changes; (2) the need for clean energy in India; (3) changes in dam infrastructure technology; (4) escalating cross-border terrorist attacks; and (5) the effects of climate change”.

However, in each instance, the court found that the “necessary conditions for invoking a ‘fundamental change of circumstances’ under the law of treaties had not been met”.

The court pointed out that the IWT “was of a type that would remain operational” even during an armed conflict, adding that such a conflict did not exist at present.

Furthermore, the PCA also considered whether India’s conduct could be justified “as a ‘countermeasure’ against an antecedent violation of international law by Pakistan”, but found that the requirements for a lawful countermeasure had not been met.

The court ruled that a “termination or suspension of the operation of the treaty would affect India’s obligations to protect fundamental human rights, would not permit the resumption of India’s obligations under the treaty, and would preclude the operation of dispute settlement provisions under the treaty”.

Timeline of proceedings

Pakistan had initiated the arbitration proceedings regarding the western rivers in August 2016, the PCA press release recalled.

However, in December that year, the World Bank decided to “pause” the process of appointing the chairman of the Court of Arbitration and the neutral expert. This pause was lifted in 2022, following which a neutral expert was appointed.

After India unilaterally held the IWT in abeyance in April 2025, the PCA considered its effect on the court’s competence in a “Supplemental Award on Competence” issued on June 27 that year.

The court held that “India’s decision on the ‘abeyance’ of the treaty cannot limit the competence of the Court over this dispute”. “However, the court did not go further in determining whether the Indus Waters Treaty remained in force,” it added.

On March 4, Pakistan filed an application before the court to “determine the present status of the Treaty in light of India’s decision on ‘abeyance’”.

The PCA noted that India was invited to indicate whether it would participate in the proceedings but received “no response”. The court then directed Pakistan to “file a written memorial further detailing its application and held a hearing at the Peace Palace in The Hague” from April 26 to 28.