SC registrar challenges PIC order on staff details

Plea fixed for hearing before IHC chief justice today

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court registrar's office has challenged the Pakistan Information Commission (PIC) order to make the details of the apex court’s staff public in the Islamabad High Court.

The registrar through the Attorney General for Pakistan office, has filed a petition in the IHC against the PIC's July 12 order wherein the SC registrar was directed to share with the appellant the requested information at the earliest, but not later than 20 working days of the receipt of the order.

The Express Tribune has learnt that a single judge bench of the IHC led by Chief Justice Athar Minallah will take up the petition today (Thursday). Surprisingly, it was requested that the petition be fixed before IHC Judge Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb. However, the matter is fixed before the IHC chief justice.

It is also contended that the PIC cannot pass such order regarding constitutional courts as its jurisdiction is confined only on those departments which are established under statue/law.

In May 2019, applicant Mukhtar Ahmed Ali had approached the PIC, seeking particular information about the total sanctioned strength of staff members of the top court against different positions and pay scales.

The data sought details from pay scale 1 to 22, along with total vacancies in the top court against different pay scales and positions. The applicant had also sought the dates from which the positions were lying vacant.

The applicant asked for the number of staff members who were not regular but had been engaged on daily-wage basis or through short-term or long-term contracts against various positions and pay scales and the number and types of positions created anew since January 1, 2017.

The total number of female, disabled people and transgender staff members against various positions and pay scales working with the SC and a certified copy of the latest approved service rules of the top court were also required.

Earlier, the SC registrar, through Additional Attorney General Chaudhry Amir Rehman, approached the PIC requesting it to recall its order as it was passed without jurisdiction.

The PIC, however, rejecting the application, said that the SC registrar's counsel had made reference to the General Clauses Act. It added that the power to recall or rescind an order has not been provided for by the legislature in the 2017 Act.

Therefore, to infer such power from the General Clauses Act for itself would amount to the Commission exceeding the confines of its authority, in clear violation of the intention of the legislature,” it noted in its latest order.

"The powers of the Commission are clearly delineated in Section 20 of the Act and the same does not provide for recalling/rescinding orders. In fact, provision is made to monitor and report on compliance (under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act) and to impose fines on officials for willful obstruction in the working of the Commission (Under Section 20(1)(f) of the Act) but no provision has been cited to ascertain or establish the any authority/power held by the Commission to rescind/recall orders."

The PIC order read that if the assertion is that the commission’s order was illegal and without jurisdiction, a remedy is available in the form of a constitutional petition before the higher judicial forums.

“But the Commission is not authorised to create remedies that are not explicitly provided for within its constituent Act.”