IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Present:
Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa, CJ
Mr. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan
Mr. Justice Athar Minallah

Civil Petition No. 3532/2023

(On appeal against the judgment dated 13.06.2023
passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad
in ICA No. 190/2023)

Mukhtar Ahmad Ali. … Petitioner

Versus
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan,
Islamabad and another. … Respondents

Petitioner: In-person

For Respondent No. 1: In-person

On Court’s Call: Mr. Mansoor Usman Awan,

Attorney-General
Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl. AGP

Date of Hearing: 27.09.2023

JUDGMENT

Qazi Faez Isa, CJ. A letter dated 10 April 2019 was addressed to the
Registrar of the Supreme Court through which the petitioner sought the
following information:
‘a) Total sanctioned strength of staff members of
Supreme Court of Pakistan (categories-wise) against
different positions/pay-scales i.e. from pay scale 1
to 22 (category-wise).

b) Total vacancies in the Supreme Court of Pakistan

against different pay-scales/positions (category-
wise); and dates since which these positions have
been lying vacant.

c) Number of staff members who are not regular but

have been engaged on daily-wages basis or through
short-term or long-term contracts against various
positions/pay-scales (category-wise).

d) Number and types of positions created a new since

January 1, 2017.
CP No. 3532/2023 2

e) Total number of female staff members (category-

wise) against various positions/pay-scales. The
response may distinguish between the short-
term/temporary staff members and regular ones.

f) Total number of persons with disabilities working

with Supreme Court of Pakistan against various
positions/pay-scales (category-wise). The response
may distinguish between the short-term/temporary
staff members and regular ones.

g) Total number of transgender persons working with

Supreme Court of Pakistan against various
positions/pay-scales (category-wise). The response
may distinguish between the short-term/temporary
staff members and regular ones.

h) A certified copy of the latest approved Service Rules

of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.’

2. The petitioner stated that as a citizen of Pakistan it was his

fundamental right bestowed by Article 19A of the Constitution of the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan (‘the Constitution’) to receive the
information which he had sought. He also relied upon the Right of Access
to Information Act, 2017 (‘the Act’). The petitioner stated that as his
request remained unattended, he submitted an appeal to the Pakistan
Information Commission (‘the Commission’) under section 17 of the Act
on 6 May 2019. The Commission wrote to the Registrar referring to
section 9 of the Act stating that the Supreme Court may designate a
Public Information Officer and having done so the information sought by
the petitioner be provided to him by the said officer. The Commission
sent a reminder on 16 July 2019 and when that was not responded to,
the Commission sent another reminder dated 26 July 2019. By letter
dated 8 August 2019 the Registrar of the Supreme Court refused to
provide the information and referred to an Office Order dated 30
September 2014 as the reason for refusal. Since the petitioner was not
satisfied with the Registrar’s response, he invoked section 17 of the Act,
which resulted in Appeal No. 060-06/19 before the Commission. On 12
July 2021, the Commission, comprising of the Chief Information
Commissioner and two Information Commissioners, allowed the
petitioner’s appeal and directed that the information be provided to him.
CP No. 3532/2023 3

3. Mr. Jawad Paul, who was the Registrar of the Supreme Court at
the relevant time, submitted an application calling upon the Commission
to withdraw its order dated 12 July 2021. Notice was issued by the
Commission; the petitioner submitted his response and the Registrar
submitted his written submissions through ‘Ch. Aamir Rehman,
Additional Attorney-General/counsel for the applicant/respondent’. The
Commission vide order dated 17 November 2021 decided that the
request to withdraw the Commission’s order ‘falls outside the scope of the
powers vested in this Commission under the Right of Access to Information
Act, 2017.’

4. On 22 November 2021, the Chief Justice of Pakistan1 directed that

the Additional Attorney-General (‘AAG’) should challenge the orders of
the Commission and file a writ petition before the Islamabad High Court.
Resultantly, Writ Petition No. 4284 of 2021 was filed by the Registrar,
Supreme Court of Pakistan wherein the Commission and the petitioner
were arrayed as respondents, praying that, ‘the impugned Orders dated
12.07.2021 and 17.11.2021’ passed by the Commission be declared
‘illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction’. The writ petition was allowed
vide judgment dated 3 April 2023 and the impugned orders were set
aside on the ground that the Supreme Court ‘is not a public body for the
purposes of the Act and it does not fall within the jurisdiction of Pakistan
Information Commission’.

5. Since the writ petition was decided by a learned Single Judge, the
petitioner preferred an intra-court appeal (ICA No. 190/2023) under
section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 against the judgment
before a Division Bench. But since the appeal was belatedly filed,
therefore, the Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court, without
attending to the merits of the case, held that since sufficient reason to
condone delay had not been given, the application seeking the delay to be
condoned was dismissed and consequently the intra-court appeal was
dismissed, as being time-barred.

6. The petitioner who represents himself commenced his submissions

by referring to Article 19A of the Constitution, which reads as under:

1
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed.
CP No. 3532/2023 4

‘Every citizen shall have the right to have access to

information in all matters of public importance subject to
regulation and reasonable restrictions imposed by law.’

He submitted that Article 19A does not exclude the Supreme Court. He
further submitted that neither the information which was sought was
sensitive nor was of a nature that required it to be kept secret. As
regards the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, the
petitioner stated that the orders of the Commission were set aside on a
technicality without considering Article 19A of the Constitution. And, as
regards the dismissal of the intra-court appeal on the ground that it was
belatedly filed, the petitioner submitted that the learned Single Judge
had heard the case on 3 April 2023, but the petitioner was not informed
about the announcement of the judgment and he learnt of it from social
media. He stated that he is not an advocate and represented himself
before the High Court, therefore, a notice informing him of the
announcement of the judgment should have been sent. The petitioner
stated that the Act sets out how requests for information are submitted
and that there is no reason to exclude the Supreme Court from the Act’s
applicability, particularly when disclosure of the required information
was not proscribed. He also relied upon the order of the Commission
which had directed the Registrar to provide the said information.

7. Ch. Aamir Rehman, learned AAG, informed us that he was directed

by the then Attorney-General for Pakistan2 (‘AG’) who had been
instructed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court to file a representation
before the Commission and to assail the orders of the Commission before
the High Court, and this was done without receiving any remuneration.

8. We have observed that litigation was initiated in the name of the

Supreme Court by the Registrar. The Supreme Court Rules, 1980 (‘the
Rules’) provide that the Registrar is the ‘executive head of the office and
shall exercise such powers as assigned to him’.3 The Rules do not grant to
the Registrar the specific power to initiate litigation and though the Chief
Justice may assign ‘any function required by the Rules to be performed by
the Registrar’, the Rules do not require, nor envisage, initiating litigation.
Therefore, the Registrar could not be given this responsibility nor could

2
Mr. Khalid Jawed Khan,
3
Supreme Court Rules, 1980, Order III, rule 1.
CP No. 3532/2023 5

he undertake it. The Constitution defines the Supreme Court as the

Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court.4 However, litigation was
initiated by the Registrar without the approval of the Supreme Court (as
defined in the Constitution). At the relevant time a bureaucrat5 was
serving as Registrar who may not have been aware of the Rules and
constitutional stipulations. The learned AAG, who represented the
Supreme Court, is employed by the office of the AG. The AG attends to
the matters of the Federal Government,6 which is part of the Executive
and mandated to be separate from the Judiciary.7 The instant matter
concerned the Supreme Court, and had no concern with the Federal
Government.

9. The question of maintainability of the writ petition, filed by the

Registrar of the Supreme Court before the High Court, was raised before
the learned Single Judge who held the petition to be maintainable by
referring to the cases of Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan v Hassan
Akbar8 and Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan v Qazi Wali Muhammad. 9
The Hassan Akbar case was with regard to a complaint against an
Assistant Advocate-General who had appeared before the Supreme Court
when he was not enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court; the
matter arose out of the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee,
therefore, it cannot be cited as a precedent entitling the Supreme Court
to initiate litigation. In the other case, Qazi Wali Muhammad was
terminated from the service of the Supreme Court and had filed an
appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, whose order reinstating him
was challenged by the Registrar before the Supreme Court under Article
212 (3) of the Constitution. This Court held that Qazi Wali Muhammad
was not a civil servant as defined in the Civil Servants Act, 1973,
therefore, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction. The Registrar had not
initiated litigation in the Qazi Wali Muhammad case; he had not filed the
appeal before the Tribunal. The particular facts and the very limited
scope of these two cases cannot be treated as precedents enabling the

4
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Article 176.
5
Mr. Jawad Paul.
6
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Article 100(3).
7
Ibid, Article 175(3).
8
1987 PCrLJ 1321.
9
1997 SCMR 141.
CP No. 3532/2023 6

Registrar to initiate litigation on behalf of the Supreme Court,

particularly when judgments in neither case had discussed this aspect.

10. The learned AG, Mr. Mansoor Usman Awan, stated that the Act
applies only to public bodies as defined in its section 2(ix) and this
definition does not include the Supreme Court. And, though the Act is
applicable to ‘court, tribunal, commission or board under the Federal law’,
the Supreme Court is established under the Constitution, and not under
a Federal law, nor is the Supreme Court a public body of the Federal
Government to which the Act does apply. Therefore, the Act was not
applicable and the Commission did not have jurisdiction with regard to
the Supreme Court. The learned AG, however, did suggest self-regulation
and that the Supreme Court may make the envisaged regulations
stipulating how applications seeking information should be submitted
and who and how information should be provided under Article 19A. He
further suggested that if the person authorized to provide information
refused to provide it, there should be a chamber appeal against such
refusal before a Judge.

11. We have heard the petitioner and the learned AG and have
examined the provisions of the Act and the Constitution. We are in
agreement with the learned AG that the Act clearly does not apply to the
Supreme Court of Pakistan. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the
petitioner before the Commission was not maintainable and to such
extent the learned Single Judge of the High Court had correctly
determined the matter. However, the matter does not end there.

12. The question of whether the petitioner can seek information under
Article 19A of the Constitution still needs consideration. The Supreme
Court is not excluded from the purview of Article 19A of the Constitution,
and information of ‘public importance’ can be sought thereunder. It now
needs consideration as to what constitutes public importance. The phrase
‘public importance’ is mentioned in a number of places in the
Constitution,10 but it does not define it. The phrase however has been

10
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Articles 184(3), 186(1) and 212(3).
CP No. 3532/2023 7

interpreted by this Court. In the case of Manzoor Elahi v Federation of

Pakistan,11 it was held that:
‘The term “public” is invariably employed in
contradistinction to the terms private or individual, and
connotes, as an adjective, something pertaining to, or
belonging to, the people; relating to a nation, state, or
community. In other words, it refers to something which is
to be shared or participated in or enjoyed by the public at
large, and is not limited or restricted to any particular
class of the community. As observed by the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council in Hamabai Framjee Petit
v. Secretary of State for India-in-Council ILR 39 Bom. 279
while construing the words public purpose such a phrase,
“whatever else it may mean must include a purpose, that
is an object or aim, in which the general interest of the
community, as opposed to the particular interest of
individuals, is directly and vitally concerned”. This
definition appears to me to be equally applicable to the
phrase “public importance”.’

The phrase public importance with particular reference to Fundamental

Rights was dilated upon in the case of Benazir Bhutto v Federation of
Pakistan,12 as under:
‘Lastly is the consideration of the connotation of the
expression “public importance” which is tagged to the
enforcement of the Fundamental Rights as a pre-condition
of the exercise of the power. This should not be
understood in a limited sense, but in the gamut of the
constitutional rights of freedoms and liberties, their
protection and invasion of such freedoms in a manner
which raises a serious question regarding their
enforcement. Such matters can be viewed as of public
importance, whether they arise from an individual’s case
touching his human rights of liberty and freedom, or of a
class or a group of persons as they would also be
legitimately covered by this expression.’

13. What previously may have been on a need-to-know basis Article

19A of the Constitution has transformed it to a right-to-know. The burden
has shifted from those seeking information to those who want to conceal
it. Access to information is no longer a discretion granted through
occasional benevolence, but is now13 a fundamental right available with
every Pakistani which right may be invoked under Article 19A of the
Constitution.

11
PLD 1975 Supreme Court 66, p. 144.
12
PLD 1988 Supreme Court 416, p 491.
13
Article 19A was inserted into the Constitution through section 7 of the Constitution (Eighteenth
Amendment) Act, 2010.
CP No. 3532/2023 8

14. We may observe that it is only when citizens have access to the
requisite information can they meaningfully question those paid from the
public exchequer, and who are meant to serve their interests. The
importance of the peoples’ right to information was articulated 200 years
ago:
‘A popular Government, without popular
information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a
prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both.
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a
people who mean to be their own governors, must
arm themselves with the power which knowledge
gives.’14

By now over 100 countries have some form of freedom of information

legislation.15 The United States Supreme Court has held it to be
concomitant with democracy, accountability and safeguarding against
corruption:
‘The basic purpose of (The Freedom of Information
Act) is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the
functioning of a democratic society, needed to
check against corruption and to hold the governors
accountable to the governed.’16

15. Access to information laws are also taking on a new meaning - of

efficient administration of government, as a contributor to economic
growth and a catalyst for the development of information industries.17
And restricting information has an immense cost, as observed by the
World Bank:
‘Lack of transparency can be costly both politically
and economically. It is politically debilitating
because it dilutes the ability of the democratic
system to judge and correct government policy by
cloaking the activities of special interests and
because it creates rents by giving those with
information something to trade. The economic
costs of secrecy are staggering, affecting not only
aggregate output but also the distribution of
benefits and risks. The most significant cost is
that of corruption, which adversely affects
investment and economic growth.’18

14
James Madison’s letter to W. T. Barry, August 4, 1822, cited in Environmental Protection Agency v.
Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 110-111 (1973), as quoted in the dissenting note of Douglas, J.
15
‘Encyclopedia of Privacy’ William G. Staples, Bloomsbury Academic, 2006.
16
NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978).
17
‘The World’s Right to Know’ Thomas Blanton, Foreign Policy No. 131 (Jul-Aug 2002), pp. 50-58.
18
Tara Vishwanath, Daniel Kaufman, The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 41–57.
CP No. 3532/2023 9

Access to information thus secures the well-being of the people, which is

what the nation aspires towards as stated in the Principles of Policy set
out in the Constitution.19

16. High standards were set in early Islam and those governing had to
provide information. The second caliph Hazrat Umar bin Al-Khattab (may
Allah be pleased with him) was questioned about the quantity of material
used in the making of his shirt; he did not object to being questioned and
told his son, Abdullah bin Umar, to explain, who said that in view of his
father’s large size, extra material which was used to make his shirt was
given by him.20

17. Transparency brings with it the added benefit of introspection,

which benefits institutions by promoting self-accountability. Article 19A
stipulates that information be provided subject to regulation and
reasonable restrictions imposed by law. However, there is no law which
attends to the Supreme Court in this regard nor has the Supreme Court
itself made any regulations. Needless to state that if a law is enacted
and/or regulations made, requests for information would be attended to
in accordance therewith and in accordance with Article 19A.

18. Article 19A envisages the placing of reasonable restrictions on the

provision of information, but refusing to provide information is to be
justified by the person, authority or institution withholding it. In the
present case, there is no reason why the information sought by the
petitioner should not be provided, nor can the provision of such
information be categorized as being contrary to the public interest.
Consequently, the information sought by the petitioner should have been
provided to him.

19. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, this petition is

converted into an appeal and is allowed by directing the Registrar of the
Supreme Court to provide the said information to the petitioner within
seven days. The office is also directed to refund to the petitioner the
court fee paid by him on this petition and on the intra-court appeal filed
in the High Court.
19
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Article 38(a).
20
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah, I‘lam al-Muwaqqi‘in ‘an Rabb al-‘Alamin (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah,
1991), vol. 2, p. 133.
CP No. 3532/2023 10

20. In view of the public importance of this matter, and as this is the
first case of its kind decided by the Supreme Court, this judgment is to
be translated into Urdu. The English version shall be treated as this
Court’s decision in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution.

Chief Justice

Judge

I have added additional reasoning

Judge

Islamabad
(Farrukh)

Announced in open Court at Islamabad on 16 October 2023.

Chief Justice

Approved for Reporting