HSA BIC RTI case remains pending after more than one year

A Right to Information request seeking details of the Health Services Academy Business Incubation Center has been disputed

Islamabad:  A Right to Information request seeking details of the Health Services Academy Business Incubation Center has been disputed for over a year. The applicant alleges that the response provided by HSA failed to answer most questions, instead containing documents unrelated to the specific information requested.

The RTI request was submitted to the Vice Chancellor and Public Information Officer of the Health Services Academy on August 26, 2025 under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017. The applicant sought about 19 pieces of information about the Business Incubation Center, including its approval, legal authority, Higher Education Commission recognition, rules, finances, staff, partnerships, startups and performance reports.

The request specifically sought copies of the meetings or resolutions that established the Business Incubation Center, the rules governing its operations and details of any approval or recognition from the HEC, Ministry of National Health Services or other competent authorities.

The applicant also sought information on whether the HSA Business Incubation Center complied with the HEC Business Incubation Center Policy 2021, details of courses and certificates, fees collected since its establishment, grants and donations, agreements with private and government partners, staff appointments and salaries, incubated startups, annual reports, audits and complete income and expenditure statements.

According to the applicant’s December 30, 2025 rejoinder before the Pakistan Information Commission, HSA provided information against Serial No. 4 and Serial No. 7 of the original request but claimed exemption from disclosure for the remaining information.

The applicant told the commission that the response did not address the substance of the information request and argued that the remaining information should be disclosed under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017.

A later follow up submitted by the applicant on May 11 also complained that the public body appeared to be submitting a large amount of material without directly matching it to the original questions. The applicant asked the Pakistan Information Commission to compare the documents provided by HSA with the original RTI request and ensure that complete information was supplied.

The documents described as HSA’s response package included minutes of an HSA Syndicate meeting from October 2024, academic rules and regulations for undergraduate and graduate programmes, the HEC policy on Business Incubation Centers, a brief list of three startups operating at HSA and audited financial statements for the year ending June 30, 2023.

The three startups listed in the material were identified as Health and Wellness Centre, Tax and Legal, and Capacity Training.

The applicant’s complaint, however, was that the documents did not provide direct answers to most of the specific questions raised about the Business Incubation Center.

The RTI request also sought details of government and HEC funding, private donations, support from NGOs and foreign donors, financial terms of partnerships such as those involving Enablers and Keytaab, the names and salaries of BIC staff and the current status of every startup working under the center.

The applicant further objected to remarks attributed to HSA in its response accusing him of harassment and having nefarious designs. In his rejoinder, he said that seeking information under Article 19 A of the Constitution and the Right of Access to Information Act could not be treated as harassment and asked the commission to disregard such remarks.

The applicant further claims that, despite the passage of over a year, complete answers to the questions have still not been provided. He also alleges that HSA has repeatedly submitted misleading or irrelevant documents instead of directly answering the questions and has urged the Pakistan Information Commission to take appropriate action in accordance with the law.

The case highlights wider questions about how public institutions respond to RTI requests, particularly when citizens seek detailed information about public funds, institutional decisions and government supported programmes.