LAHORE: The Punjab Information Commission (PIC) has dismissed an objection petition, asking the Punjab Judicial Academy (PJA) to provide information about the recent promotion of its staff as directed earlier.

The PIC had on Oct 13 asked the PJA to provide information to a complainant, who acted on behalf of another employee Ms Sumaira who was not promoted, about the entire procedure of the promotions in question made by it in July this year.

On Oct 28, another employee who was promoted, Ms Hina Rafique, through Advocate Faheem Akhtar, filed an objection petition with the commission arguing that its information seeking order, if implemented, would affect her privacy. And that she had not been heard before the commission passed its order.

It was argued that the disclosure of legally privileged information as well as information about legitimate commercial interests of a public body was exempted under the law. The counsel for Ms Rafique prayed for the issuance of the restraining order, which the commission refused.

However, parties to the case were called for hearing on Nov 6, which was later rescheduled on the request of the petitioner’s counsel for Nov 23.

In the meanwhile, on Oct 29, the original complainant, Ms Sumera filed another application with the commission wherein she alleged that the requested information had not been provided to her despite its order. She also expressed her apprehension that a part of the record might be destroyed, as the PIO (academy’s information officer) had told her that all of the requested record was not available and could not be provided. It was further alleged that, among others, the respondent and the PIO had also tried to threaten her.

The hearing on Nov 23 was attended by complainant Ms Sumera (who had been made a party in the petition filed by Ms Rafique and her counsel). During the hearing, Ms Sumera alleged that she had been terminated from service, as the management of the Judicial Academy suspected that the complainant had moved the complaint on her behalf.

The complainant also alleged that the PIO had warned her to withdraw the complaint otherwise she would be terminated from service. It was also alleged that the management of the Judicial Academy, including the PIO, had been using delaying tactics to obstruct the disclosure of the requested information and that the objection petition was a step taken with the same intention.

As regards the objection petition, the complainant argued that it was not maintainable.

The counsel for Ms Rafique on the contrary argued that his client had not been heard and that she was a necessary party in the case, as some of the requested information was related to her. When asked whether Ms Rafique was a party in the original matter before the commission, he answered in negative but still insisted that the disclosure of information would affect her right to privacy.

Deciding the objection complaint, the commission declared that it did not have the powers to review its orders and the petitioner might file a writ petition in the High Court, if she felt aggrieved. The objection raised about the locus standi of the complainant was also of no legal merit.

As regards the objection that Ms Rafique, being a necessary party, was not heard, the commission held that the record of the case didn’t show her as a party, nor the information sought appeared to be specifically about her. Still, the PIO or the respondent could have heard her, if they considered her a relevant party but they chose to abdicate their statutory responsibilities under the law. Once the matter was brought before the commission, it heard the parties mentioned in the record and passed its order on merit.

Ms Rafique competed for recruitment and then promotions in a public body and, therefore, her documents could be disclosed in the interest of transparency and to dispel any impression of wrongdoing in the minds of general public or competitors. The disclosure of information was not likely to cause harm to any of the legitimate interests of Ms Rafique or public body. The commission also noted with concern that the PIO and the respondent deliberately delayed implementation of the order seeking information of the promotions.

The commission dismissed the objection petition and once again directed the Academy’s PIO to provide all the requested information to the complainant latest by Dec 1 and submit a compliance report to it (the commission).

It also ordered to issue show-cause notice to the PIO under the Right to Information Law for delaying access to information beyond the time period specified in it.

Published in Dawn, November 28th, 2015