Supreme Court reluctant to disclose its employees’ details

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

Rampant lawlessness
Updated 25 Jul, 2026

Rampant lawlessness

THE brutal slaying of a judge and his guard in Mastung is the latest in a series of blood-drenched events that have...
Daily fuel pricing
25 Jul, 2026

Daily fuel pricing

THE government’s move to daily petroleum price adjustments should make fuel pricing more transparent and more...
The drug problem
25 Jul, 2026

The drug problem

WHILE Islamabad Police chase low-level peddlers, the capital’s kingpins have quietly taken their operations ...
A new chokepoint
Updated 24 Jul, 2026

A new chokepoint

WITH free transit of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz blocked due to the US-Iran conflict, a new chokepoint has...
Improved rating
24 Jul, 2026

Improved rating

S&P GLOBAL’S decision to upgrade Pakistan’s long-term sovereign credit rating to ‘B’ with a stable...
More firetraps
24 Jul, 2026

More firetraps

WHILE it was already apparent that death traps dot Karachi, a safety audit by the Sindh government has thrown up...