The Act does not accord blanket exemption to any public institution. This commission has already held that Registrar office of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan comes within the definition of public body under Section 2 (xi) (e) which is as under:
“Any court, tribunal, commission, or board under the Federal law;”.
In the absence of any judgement of any of the High Courts, or, of the Supreme Court which bars citizens from seeking information from the Registrar, 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.
The honourable Supreme Court as a public institution performs two kinds of functions i.e., a) judicial functions and b) administrative functions pertaining to procurements and recruitments, involving public funds, like any other public institution.
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.
This commission holds that only provisions of this Act can restrict disclosure of any information.
This commission maintains that the disclosure of the requested information is permissible under the provisions of the Act, 2017.
This commission maintains that the Respondent was legally bound to proactively publish the requested information about “Copies of relevant rules, regulations, orders and decisions which provide guidance/ direction about how the Supreme Court’s accounts should be audited”, on its web site as required under Section 5 of the Act, 2017.
Similarly, the Respondent was legally bound to proactively publish the requested information about “Audit reports of the Supreme Court’s accounts for the last five years including FY 2019.20. FY 2018-19, FY 2017-18, FY 2016-17, and FY 2015-16”, through its web site as required under Section 5 of the Act, 2017.
This commission also holds that the requested information about “Details of any fee, compensation or charges paid to audit firms for the conduct of audit of Supreme Court accounts for the last five years i.e., if the audits were conducted by private firms and no by the Auditor General of Pakistan””, is permissible under Section 6 (b) and (c) of the Act, 2017.