Supreme Court reluctant to disclose its employees’ details

Published December 2, 2021
An outside view of the Supreme Court building. — AFP/File
An outside view of the Supreme Court building. — AFP/File

ISLAMABAD: Reluctant to disclose details of employees, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has asked the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to overrule a decision of another judicial forum which has ordered complete disclosure of apex court’s entire workforce.

The Supreme Court Registrar Jawad Paul, through Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman filed a petition before the Islamabad High Court against the order of the Pakistan Information Commission (PIC).

PIC on July 12 allowed an application filed by a citizen Mukhtar Ahmed seeking information about sanctioned strength of SC staff from BS-1 to BS-22, vacant positions, daily wagers, posts created after January 1, 2017, persons with disabilities and transgender working in the apex court.

SC Registrar filed a review petition against the order of the PIC which has been dismissed on Nov 17.

Subsequently, the apex court’s registrar through the petition filed before the IHC requested that the information commission’s direction may be declared illegal.

According to the petition, which will be taken up by IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah on Thursday (today), “the impugned orders [of PIC] are without jurisdiction and in violation of express provisions of the constitution of and the statutory law on the subject.”

The petition pointed out that “the primary function of the PIC is to decide appeals filed under section 17 of the Right of Access to Information Act (RTI) against decision or lack thereof the designated public official of the public body.

The petition contended that “PIC erred in law while observing that Supreme Court is a public body and failed to comprehend the difference between the federal law as defined in Article 260 of the constitution” which means that laws made by or under the authority of the Parliament adding that Article 191 and 202 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to frame rules regulating its practice and procedure.

The petition stated that “the direction issued by the PIC in exercise of power under section 20 (e) of the Act for the notification of designated officer under section 9 of the Act and to take measure for publication of information and record…applicable to public bodies and not to the constitutional court.”

The petition requested the court to declare the PIC’s order as illegal.

The applicant Mukhtar Ahmed initially sought information from the apex court.

Hence, the Registrar Office has not paid due attention to my application and hasn’t decided it on its own merits in the light of relevant provisions of law and the Constitution.

Published in Dawn, December 2nd, 2021

Opinion

Editorial

Kurram atrocity
Updated 22 Nov, 2024

Kurram atrocity

It would be a monumental mistake for the state to continue ignoring the violence in Kurram.
Persistent grip
22 Nov, 2024

Persistent grip

An audit of polio funds at federal and provincial levels is sorely needed, with obstacles hindering eradication efforts targeted.
Green transport
22 Nov, 2024

Green transport

THE government has taken a commendable step by announcing a New Energy Vehicle policy aiming to ensure that by 2030,...
Military option
Updated 21 Nov, 2024

Military option

While restoring peace is essential, addressing Balochistan’s socioeconomic deprivation is equally important.
HIV/AIDS disaster
21 Nov, 2024

HIV/AIDS disaster

A TORTUROUS sense of déjà vu is attached to the latest health fiasco at Multan’s Nishtar Hospital. The largest...
Dubious pardon
21 Nov, 2024

Dubious pardon

IT is disturbing how a crime as grave as custodial death has culminated in an out-of-court ‘settlement’. The...