The News International: PK: Wednesday,
March 22, 2017.
With the
enforcement of Right to Information (RTI) law in Punjab, citizens aware of
their rights are not only filing requests to the government departments but
also to the judiciary. Sirmed Ali, a law graduate, is one of them. He asked
questions which were impossible just a few years ago.
In October
last year, he filed an RTI application demanding information about the monthly
salary and allowances drawn by the chief justice of the Lahore High Court
(LHC). The answer is yet awaited.
Waseem Elahi,
yet another applicant, requested information from the LHC about the security
personnel deputed with the judges along with a breakup of deployment at their
homes and offices in addition to the expenditures incurred under this head.
Being a taxpayer, he argued, it is his right to know about the use of his
money. No reply has been received to date.
Third
applicant is Shehryar Ahmed who had applied for a vacant post in the LHC
advertised in the newspapers.
The
application process fee of Rs500 was also deposited. He was never informed
about his status. His RTI application has asked about the number of candidates
applied, the names of selectors, total amount collected as processing fee and
then wondered why he has not been informed about the status of his application.
“Shouldn’t
the candidates be informed regarding their application status as they have paid
hefty amount of Rs500 for the processing of their applications while being
unemployed/student or seekers of better opportunity,” reads his last question
in the RTI application submitted in February this year. He has not received any
answer.
All three
applicants finally moved Punjab Information Commission against the
non-provision of requested details from the LHC. In each case, the PIC sent letters
to the highest court of the province seeking explanation for inordinate delay
as Punjab’s RTI law requires the submission of information within 14 working
days.
Since
Sirmed’s is the oldest among three complaints filed against the LHC, the PIC has
issued its verdict demanding the provision of information not later than April
4 this year.
In the
judgment announced on March 20, the PIC has reminded the LHC that Punjab
Transparency and Right to Information Law 2013 is equally applicable on
judiciary and quoted precedent from India in furtherance of its argument. Delhi
High Court in its judgment dated January 12, 2010 upheld an order of Central
Information Commission of India whereby disclosure of information regarding
asset declarations of Supreme Court judges had been directed.
“In this
context, any inordinate delays or obstructions caused by the administration of
the LHC are likely to be perceived as inconsistent with international best
practice and harmful for the cause of transparency being pushed forward by the
civil society through, inter alia, demands for robust implementation of right
to information laws,” reads the PIC verdict available with The News.
“The Hon’ble
LHC is the highest court of the largest province of our country with the mandate
to administer justice and hold all other institutions to account in terms of
their compliance to laws enacted by the legislature,” the PIC verdict pointed
out. “It is, therefore, extremely important that it sets the highest standards
of compliance with the Act and transparency in its administration, which others
follow and get inspiration from,” the verdict continues.
Another point
noted in the PIC verdict is the failing of the LHC in designating principal
information officer who would deal with the RTI requests. “It is, however,
disconcerting that the Hon’ble High Court hasn’t designated a PIO, although it
should have been done within sixty days after the commencement of the Act on
December 16, 2013, when it was published in the Punjab Gazette (Extraordinary).
Similarly, neither the statutory requirement of proactive disclosure in terms
section 4 of the Act has been implemented, nor is information being provided to
citizens in response to their requests made u/s 10 of the Act,” the verdict
reads.
“In the
instant case (of Sirmed Ali), the requested information has been effectively
denied, as the respondent has not decided yet the application of the
complainant on its merits, despite several letters of the Commission. It may be
noted here that each application for access to information should ordinarily be
decided within 14 working days as per section 10(7) of the Act,” the verdict
goes on.
Explaining
the reason of delay in designating PIO, Jamal Ahmad, additional registrar of
the LHC, conveyed to the PIC that PIO couldn’t be designated as it “has been
pending decision of the Hon’ble Administration Committee of this court.”
The PIC
verdict has re-emphasized that the nature of information requested (salary and
allowances of judges) should have been rather displayed on the official
website.
“As for the
instant complaint is concerned, the requested information is of such a nature
that it should have been proactively disclosed through the official website or
other types of publications in accordance with section 4(g) of the Act.
However, it has neither been proactively disclosed, nor the respondent has
provided the same to the complainant even after a lapse of several months and
despite the notices issued by the Commission. The response of the deputy
registrar (HR-II) to the effect that the application of the complainant had not
been received by the respondent amounts to rejection of information request on
technical grounds, especially when copies of the application of the complainant
were attached with the letters of the Commission addressed to the respondent
and, in any case, the requested information is of the nature that it should
have been proactively disclosed. Any office holder, who appreciates the
importance of transparency and is working with a problem-solving approach,
would focus on the substance of the matter, instead of delaying disclosure by
relying upon technicalities,” the PIC judgment reads.