SC Allows PTI Counsel Salman Safdar to Meet Imran Khan
SC allows PTI counsel Salman Safdar to meet Imran Khan in a major legal and political development that has drawn nationwide attention. The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday permitted Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawyer Salman Safdar to meet former prime minister Imran Khan, who is currently facing multiple legal cases.
This decision comes amid rising concerns over fair trial rights, access to legal counsel, and transparency in high-profile political cases. The apex court’s move is being seen as a reaffirmation of constitutional protections, especially the right of an accused to consult and be defended by a lawyer of choice.
The ruling also gained significance after the Supreme Court formally declared Salman Safdar a “friend of the court,” a status that allows a lawyer to assist the court impartially on legal questions of public importance.
Supreme Court Declares Salman Safdar ‘Friend of the Court’
As SC allows PTI counsel Salman Safdar to meet Imran Khan, the court simultaneously recognized Safdar as a friend of the court. This designation is not merely symbolic; it reflects the court’s trust in the lawyer’s legal expertise and professional integrity.
A “friend of the court” (amicus curiae) assists judges by providing independent legal opinions, especially in sensitive constitutional or political matters. Legal experts say this step strengthens judicial independence and ensures that complex legal arguments are fully examined before final rulings are issued.
According to the official website of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the court has the authority to appoint amici curiae in cases involving fundamental rights and constitutional interpretation.
Legal Significance of the Supreme Court Order
The fact that SC allows PTI counsel Salman Safdar to meet Imran Khan carries deep legal importance. Under Article 10-A of Pakistan’s Constitution, every citizen is entitled to a fair trial and due process. Restricting access to legal counsel can be seen as a violation of this fundamental right.
By granting permission for the meeting, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that legal access must not be compromised, regardless of political sensitivities. Senior advocates believe this ruling could set a precedent for other politically exposed cases where access to lawyers has been restricted.
Moreover, the court’s decision signals that procedural fairness must prevail over administrative hurdles, particularly when the liberty of a former elected prime minister is at stake.
Political and Constitutional Impact of the Decision
When SC allows PTI counsel Salman Safdar to meet Imran Khan, the implications extend beyond the courtroom. The ruling has sparked strong reactions across the political spectrum, with PTI supporters hailing it as a victory for justice and democratic norms.
Constitutional analysts argue that the Supreme Court is asserting its role as a guardian of fundamental rights, even under intense political pressure. This decision also sends a message to state institutions that constitutional guarantees cannot be selectively applied.
At a time when Pakistan’s political environment remains polarized, the court’s intervention may help restore public confidence in the judicial system and reinforce the balance of power envisioned by the Constitution.
PTI Legal Strategy After the Court Ruling
Following the ruling where SC allows PTI counsel Salman Safdar to meet Imran Khan, PTI’s legal team is expected to reassess its strategy in ongoing cases. Direct consultation between Imran Khan and his counsel enables better preparation, clearer instructions, and more effective legal arguments.
Legal observers believe that Salman Safdar’s role as both PTI counsel and friend of the court could prove pivotal in upcoming hearings. His involvement may help ensure that constitutional questions are thoroughly addressed rather than overshadowed by political narratives.
Broader Implications for Rule of Law in Pakistan
The development that SC allows PTI counsel Salman Safdar to meet Imran Khan highlights broader issues concerning rule of law and judicial independence in Pakistan. Access to legal representation is a cornerstone of justice systems worldwide, and any erosion of this right raises serious concerns.
By intervening decisively, the Supreme Court has emphasized that no individual—regardless of political standing—should be denied basic legal protections. This approach aligns Pakistan’s judicial practice with international legal standards and human rights norms.
The ruling may also influence future cases involving political leaders, journalists, and activists, where legal access and transparency become contentious issues. Analysts say such decisions gradually shape a stronger culture of constitutionalism.
