The News PK: Lahore: Wednesday, 25 March 2026.
In a rare and detailed ruling, the Punjab Information Commission (PIC) has termed the filing of multiple, identical right to information (RTI) requests an “abuse of law,” rejecting 35 complaints lodged by Attique-ur-Rehman against various offices of the Irrigation Department across Punjab.
In an order issued on
March 24, 2026 by Chief Information Commissioner Muhammad Malik bhulla and
Information Commissioner Bushra Saqib, sets out at length the background,
conduct of the complainant and legal reasoning for dismissing the complaints
while cautioning against misuse of the Punjab Transparency and Right to
Information Act 2013. The commission recalled that the complainant had earlier
approached it with 45 complaints seeking information from irrigation offices
throughout the province. Those applications were filed on the letterhead of the
Pakistan Irrigation Employees (Power) Union, with the complainant claiming to
be its office-bearer.
During an inquiry, however, it transpired that the union was no longer registered with the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The complainant was summoned to explain his status but failed to justify his claim, leading the commission to dispose of those complaints.
Despite that outcome, the complainant returned with another set of 35 complaints targeting different offices of the same department. The commission observed that all RTI applications were identical, prepared on a standard printed proforma in which only the name of the public body and the year had been inserted. It further noted that in at least one complaint, the appended RTI application was entirely blank, consisting solely of the printed template.
Examining the substance of the requests, the commission found them to be vague and lacking specificity. The applications did not identify any particular work, project or vehicle but instead broadly sought records relating to fuel costs and maintenance expenses of all vehicles for the specified year. Such sweeping and undefined requests, the order held, failed to meet the mandatory requirements of Section 10(3) of the RTI Act, which obliges an applicant to clearly specify the information sought.
The commission also highlighted the volume and pattern of the complaints, noting that filing a large number of identical applications against multiple offices of a single department called for scrutiny of their appropriateness. It concluded that the case represented a repetitive misuse of the RTI law.
Referring to earlier proceedings, including a complaint disposed of on Nov 10, 2025, the irrigation department had informed the commission that the complainant had a history of filing numerous complaints against it before various forums. The PIC observed that such conduct, coupled with identical requests, demonstrated mala fide intent and amounted to an abuse of the legal process designed to intimidate the department.
In support of its conclusions, the commission cited several judicial precedents from India, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhaya (2011), as well as decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Central Information Commission. These judgments held that repetitive RTI requests of wide scope and amplitude amount to misuse of transparency laws and can transform them into tools of oppression and intimidation rather than accountability.
Summing up its findings, the commission held that the RTI applications in question were both bereft of the mandatory particulars required under Section 10(3) and vexatious in nature. On both counts, it ruled, the complaints were liable to be rejected.
The dismissal of all 35 complaints, coupled with the commission’s strong observations, marks a rare instance of the watchdog explicitly characterising such conduct as abuse of the RTI framework and warning that the law cannot be weaponised to harass public bodies.
In a rare and detailed ruling, the Punjab Information Commission (PIC) has termed the filing of multiple, identical right to information (RTI) requests an “abuse of law,” rejecting 35 complaints lodged by Attique-ur-Rehman against various offices of the Irrigation Department across Punjab.
 |
| The Punjab Information Commission building. The News/File |
During an inquiry, however, it transpired that the union was no longer registered with the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The complainant was summoned to explain his status but failed to justify his claim, leading the commission to dispose of those complaints.
Despite that outcome, the complainant returned with another set of 35 complaints targeting different offices of the same department. The commission observed that all RTI applications were identical, prepared on a standard printed proforma in which only the name of the public body and the year had been inserted. It further noted that in at least one complaint, the appended RTI application was entirely blank, consisting solely of the printed template.
Examining the substance of the requests, the commission found them to be vague and lacking specificity. The applications did not identify any particular work, project or vehicle but instead broadly sought records relating to fuel costs and maintenance expenses of all vehicles for the specified year. Such sweeping and undefined requests, the order held, failed to meet the mandatory requirements of Section 10(3) of the RTI Act, which obliges an applicant to clearly specify the information sought.
The commission also highlighted the volume and pattern of the complaints, noting that filing a large number of identical applications against multiple offices of a single department called for scrutiny of their appropriateness. It concluded that the case represented a repetitive misuse of the RTI law.
Referring to earlier proceedings, including a complaint disposed of on Nov 10, 2025, the irrigation department had informed the commission that the complainant had a history of filing numerous complaints against it before various forums. The PIC observed that such conduct, coupled with identical requests, demonstrated mala fide intent and amounted to an abuse of the legal process designed to intimidate the department.
In support of its conclusions, the commission cited several judicial precedents from India, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhaya (2011), as well as decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Central Information Commission. These judgments held that repetitive RTI requests of wide scope and amplitude amount to misuse of transparency laws and can transform them into tools of oppression and intimidation rather than accountability.
Summing up its findings, the commission held that the RTI applications in question were both bereft of the mandatory particulars required under Section 10(3) and vexatious in nature. On both counts, it ruled, the complaints were liable to be rejected.
The dismissal of all 35 complaints, coupled with the commission’s strong observations, marks a rare instance of the watchdog explicitly characterising such conduct as abuse of the RTI framework and warning that the law cannot be weaponised to harass public bodies.
.JPG)
.JPG)
