• October 18, 2023
• General News
• Abid Hussain

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday ordered its registrar to provide
information related to apex court’s staff – under the Right to Information (RTI) Act – to a
petitioner within seven days.
A three-member judge bench headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa comprising Justice
Aminuddin and Justice Athar Minallah announced its reserved verdict against an order of
Islamabad High Court (IHC). Justice Athar wrote additional note.
The petitioner Mukhtar Ahmed Ali had sought information about total sanctioned strength of the
SC, vacancies, female staff, persons with disabilities, number of transgender, and the detail of
regular and daily wagers in the apex court.
Amendments to NAO: SC urged to review its judgment
The court while agreeing with the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan stated
that the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017 clearly does not apply to the Supreme Court of
Pakistan, adding “therefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the commission was not
maintainable and to such extent the Single Judge of the Islamabad High Court had correctly
determined the matter”.
The AGP had submitted before the court that the Act applies only to public bodies as defined in
its section 2(ix) and this definition does not include the Supreme Court.
He had further stated that though the Act is applicable to ‘court, tribunal, commission or board
under the federal law’, the Supreme Court is established under the constitution, and not under a
federal law, nor is the Supreme Court a public body of the Federal Government to which the Act
does apply. “Therefore, the Act was not applicable and the Commission did not have jurisdiction
with regard to the SC.”
However, the judgment said the SC is not excluded from the purview of Article 19A of the
Constitution, and information of ‘public importance’ can be sought there under. It now needs
consideration as to what constitutes public importance. The phrase ‘public importance’ is
mentioned in a number of places in the Constitution, but it does not define it

It said that Access to Information laws are also taking on a new meaning – of efficient
administration of government, as a contributor to economic growth and a catalyst for the
development of information industries.
The judgment stated that the high standards were set in early Islam and those governing had to
provide information. The second Caliph Hazrat Umar bin Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with
him) was questioned about the quantity of material used in the making of his shirt; he did not
object to being questioned and told his son, Abdullah bin Umar, to explain, who said that in view
of his father’s large size, extra material which was used to make his shirt was given by him.
Transparency brings with it the added benefit of introspection, which benefits institutions by
promoting self-accountability. Article 19A stipulates that information be provided subject to
regulation and reasonable restrictions imposed by law.
However, there is no law which attends to the SC in this regard nor has the SC itself made any
regulations. Needless to state that if a law is enacted and/or regulations made, requests for
information would be attended to in accordance therewith and in accordance with Article 19A.
Article 19A envisages the placing of reasonable restrictions on the provision of information, but
refusing to provide information is to be justified by the person, authority or institution
withholding it.
In the instant case, there is no reason why the information sought by the petitioner should not be
provided, nor can the provision of such information be categorized as being contrary to the
public interest. Consequently, the information sought by the petitioner should have been
provided to him.

Source: Business Recorder