ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary vs PAKISTAN INFORMATION COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary VS PAKISTAN INFORMATION COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD S.2(ix)----Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.19A, 41, 199 & 218---Right of access to information---Pakistan Information Commission (PIC) issuing directions to constitutional entities (Election Commission of Pakistan and office of President) to disclose information---Legality---Authority and jurisdiction of PIC to issue directions to constitutional entities---Scope---The petitioners approached the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the President's Secretariat from time to time seeking various categories of information, including budget allocations, expenditures, vehicle maintenance, details of POL use, information regarding the 2013 general elections, internal audit reports, sanctioned strength of staff, vacant posts, transgender staff data, overseas voters data, and policies relating to online or internet voting by overseas Pakistanis---When this information was not provided, respondent No.2 filed multiple appeals before the Pakistan Information Commission (PIC), which issued several orders directing disclosure---The petitioner (ECP) then filed the present writ petitions challenging those PIC orders---The legal issue requiring determination before the High Court was to "whether the PIC possessed jurisdiction to issue binding directions to constitutional bodies, such as ECP and the office of the President, for the disclosure of information sought by citizens or whether any office under the garb of constitutional protection deny disclosure of information"?---Held: Plain reading of the definition of "public body" provided in the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017 (the Act) revealed that the Act applied to executive and statutory organs of the federal government and the Act was silent about institutions created directly under the Constitution, such as office of the President, the Parliament, the ECP, or the superior Judiciary---These institutions were not creatures of statute, but derived their authority from the Constitution itself---The Act could not be invoked against the ECP or the office of the President---The PIC being a creation of the Act, exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the impugned directions to these constitutional entities---Such exercise of power was contrary to the constitutional scheme and was coram non judice---However, the constitutional offices were not immune from transparency or accountability---Constitutional institutions like the ECP and the office of the President must ensure mechanisms for disclosure, consistent with their constitutional character, security imperatives, and the principle of good governance---In the present case, there appeared no lawful justification for denying the information sought by the private respondents---The record did not disclose any ground to suggest that furnishing the requested information would be contrary to the public interest---Accordingly, the information sought ought to have been provided to the private respondents in the spirit of constitutional transparency and accountability---However, in the present case, while the PIC might have acted with the bona fide intention of promoting transparency, it lacked the jurisdictional authority to compel the disclosure of information from constitutional entities through statutory means---The impugned orders, therefore, suffered from inherent lack of lawful authority and could not be sustained---The Act did not apply to constitutional bodies including ECP and the office of the President as they were not public bodies within the meaning of S.2(ix) of the Act---Pakistan Information Commission being the statutory authority had no jurisdiction to issue binding directions or orders against such constitutional entities---Orders passed by PIC were without lawful authority and same were set aside---Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances.

ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary vs PAKISTAN INFORMATION COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD S — 2026 PLD 118 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD