ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has remanded two Pakistan Information Commission (PIC) orders in right-to-information cases against the National Assembly Secretariat, directing the commission to decide the matters afresh through a speaking and reasoned order within 90 days.

In a judgment authored by Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, the court unequivocally held that the National Assembly Secretariat is a “public body” under the Right of Access to Information (RTI) Act, 2017, and is therefore subject to the law’s transparency regime.

The judgment contains an extensive discussion on Article 19-A of the Constitution and the RTI Act, emphasising that the law was enacted to promote transparency, accountability, public participation in governance, reduction of corruption and inefficiency, and good governance. The court observed that access to information is a constitutional right rather than a concession granted by public authorities.

The cases arose from information requests submitted by journalist Saddia Mazhar, seeking records related to parliamentary privilege motions, committee proceedings, deputation of officers and promotion records within the National Assembly Secretariat.

After the Secretariat declined to provide the information, the Pakistan Information Commission allowed the journalist’s appeals and directed disclosure of the requested records.

The court also reproduced arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant that Section 11(5) of the RTI Act does not require an applicant to provide reasons for seeking information or attach a copy of a Computerised National Identity Card (CNIC). The Secretariat’s objections on these grounds were not accepted as a basis for dismissing the proceedings.

Importantly, the court did not uphold the speaker’s October 4, 2022 classification ruling. Instead, it directed the PIC to determine whether the Speaker can legally act as a Minister-in-Charge, whether Section 7(f) applies, whether the ruling satisfies statutory requirements, and whether it can operate retrospectively.

The court further observed that finalised parliamentary privilege matters may constitute public record, while pending matters may fall under the intermediary-opinion exemption, subject to determination by the PIC.

Published in Dawn, June 19th, 2026