LAHORE: The Punjab Information Commission has asked a Lahore district and sessions judge to re-examine an application and provide the complainant with requested information as soon as possible but not later than March 9.

Allowing a complaint by Umeed through its Secretary General, Muhammad Kabir, the commission asked the judge to act in accordance with the Right to Information Act, especially in terms of disclosure and automation of records.

According to the order, Mr Kabir had submitted a complaint on Nov 11, 2015, alleging that the court had not provided him with the information.

The information sought by the complainant on Oct 1, 2015, included all applications with documents, advertisement, merit list and appointment letters for jobs of stenographers, data entry operators, junior clerks, naib qasids, process server, gardeners and peons, recruitment policy and details of the recruitment staff, etc, and reasons for rejection of candidates.

The commission had asked the respondent (judge) on Dec 12, 2015, to immediately provide the requested information to the complainant or explain the reasons, including rebuttal, if any, of the alleged non-response or delay in deciding the matter. The commission sent a reminder on Jan 20, 2016.

The respondent submitted a response to the commission on Feb 11, 2016, that “the matter under reference has already been disposed of by my learned predecessor Bahadur Ali Khan, the then district and sessions judge”.

The respondent had taken the plea that the recruitment record pertains to the secrecy of a department and could be unfolded commonly.

The commission held that the judge’s order was not based on correct understanding of the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act 2013, enacted in the light of Article 19A of the Constitution.

“It also overrides all other laws and rules in view of its Section 24 and, therefore, any restrictions on disclosure of information provided in others laws or rules, including the Copying Manual, cannot be relied upon to deny such an important fundamental right of access to information.

“Information can be withheld only if its disclosure is likely to cause harm to any of the interests protected under Section 13 of the Act.

“The commission is of the view that the learned judge should have examined the requested information in the light of sections 13 and 22 of the Act; and the information not hit by Section 13 should have been provided within the time prescribed in Section 10(7) of the Act. Even in relation to application of Section 13 of the Act, the commission has repeatedly held that the public bodies should deny access to records only when it could be unambiguously established that the disclosure would cause more harm to any of the protected interests than its possible benefits.

“As regards the records of recruitments in public bodies, most of the information should be accessible in view of the material interest of competing candidates as well as the general public interest in the transparent use of official authority and public resources.”

Published in Dawn, February 24th, 2016