Public Information Officer, Ministry of Law and Justice is directed to share with Appellants within 7 working days of the receipt of this Order all notifications pertaining to the following:
Perks and privileges of Honourable Chief Justice and Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and Islamabad High Court.
Pension and postretirement benefits of Honourable Chief Justice and Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and Islamabad High Court.
Plots allotted in any scheme administered by the government or a state owned or controlled statutory body, foundation, company or agency received by the Honourable Chief Justice and Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and Islamabad High Court during the last five years.
This commission is of the view that Registrar offices of Honourable Islamabad High Court and Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan come within the definition of public body…
This commission holds that Honourable Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Mrs. Sarina Isa provided requested information the Appellants voluntarily and voluntary actions of one Justice cannot be equated with legally binding requirements for all justices under the Act.
The Registrar Office of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has shared a letter which is of administrative nature and not a judgement.
In the absence of any judgement of the Supreme Court which bars citizens from seeking information from the Supreme Court under the Right of Access to information Act on the grounds that it is tantamount to curbing independence of the judiciary, this commission is left with no option but to determine likelihood of any such eventuality. In this context, it is important to understand the principle of separation of judiciary from executive oversight and public accountability through the exercise of the constitutional right of access to information.
This commission is of the view that the exercise of constitutional and statutory right of citizens in matters of public importance through the Act is neither likely to, nor, designed to curtail independence of the superior judiciary. This commission also believes that exercise of constitutional right of access to information in matters of public importance through the Act cannot be equated with executive oversight of superior judiciary.
The categories of information to be proactively disclosed under Section 5 of the Act have no bearing on the independence of the judiciary. Similarly, the information to be provided to the applicants under Section 6 of the Act is also not in conflict with the independence of the judiciary. Furthermore, the Public Information Officer to be designated under the Act will receive applications and can turn down any request for information which is likely to impact independence of the judiciary, relying on the relevant exemption clauses of Section 7 and 16 of the Act.
Each public institution performs certain core functions. This commission holds that if citizens’ right of access to information in matters of public importance pertaining to superior judiciary is restricted on the grounds that it would impact its independence and core functions, the same grounds would be relevant in the case of all public institutions.
The learned counsel has cited jurisprudence from different countries for declaration of assets of judges and their family members. It is prerogative of the Parliament to enact legislation to this effect as this commission can only decide the issue at hand within the provisions of this Act.
So far as access to the requested information about perks, privileges, Pension and postretirement benefits of Honourable Chief Justice and Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and Islamabad High Court, and plots allotted in any scheme administered by the government or a state owned or controlled statutory body, foundation, company or agency received by the Honourable Chief Justice and Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and Islamabad High Court during the last five years is concerned, this commission holds that this information available with the Ministry of Law and Justice in the shape of notifications. Had the Ministry of Law and Justice carried out its obligation to ensure proactive disclosure of categories of information mentioned in Section 5 of the Act, this information would have already been published on its web site and easily accessible for citizens. Furthermore, had the Respondent Ministry of Law and Justice implemented provisions of this Act, including, but not limited to Section 4 and 5 of the Act, the unwarranted delay in providing requested information to the Applicants could have been avoided.