Supreme Court allowing petitioner plea directed the SC registrar to provide the information sought by the petitioner seeking details of the apex court’s staff under the Right to Information (RTI) Act within seven days.
The judgment passed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, inaddition to the above directed the Registrar’s Office to refund the court fee paid by the petitioner, citizen Mukhtar Ahmed Ali, for this plea and on the intra-court appeal filed by him before the Lahore High Court.
The Supreme Court observed that the Act was not applicable and the Pakistani Information Commission did not have jurisdiction with regard to the Supreme Court where the Application was intiated. The learned Attorney General, however, did suggest self-regulation and that the Supreme Court may make the envisaged regulations stipulating how applications seeking information should be submitted and who and how information should be provided under Article 19A. He further suggested that if the person authorized to provide information refused to provide it, there should be a chamber appeal against such refusal before a Judge
The judgment further noted that: “We are in agreement with the learned AG that the Act clearly does not apply to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Commission was not maintainable and to such extent the learned Single Judge of the High Court had correctly determined the matter”.
However, it added, that the apex court “is not excluded from the purview of Article 19A of the Constitution, and information of ‘public importance’ can be sought there under”.
“What previously may have been on a need-to-know basis Article 19A of the Constitution has transformed it to a right-to-know. The burden has shifted from those seeking information to those who want to conceal it. Access to information is no longer a discretion granted through occasional benevolence, but is now a fundamental right available with every Pakistani which right may be invoked under Article 19A of the Constitution,” stated the judgment.
