Punjab Information Commission under fire over RTI case

LAHORE: The Punjab Information Commission’s (PIC) handling of an information request has raised serious questions about the transparency watchdog’s own commitment to due process, with RTI activists warning that its approach could effectively give police and other public bodies a free hand to evade accountability by making unsubstantiated allegations against citizens.

The controversy relates to an RTI request submitted by journalist and RTI activist Naeem Ahmad to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, on February 23, 2026, seeking information about deaths, FIRs and legal proceedings related to the October 2025 protests by the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP).

After the information was not provided, Mr Ahmad approached the PIC on March 13. Despite repeated follow-ups and visits to the commission, the matter was disposed of on June 9 on the basis of a claim by the Punjab Police public information officer (PIO) that Mr Ahmad was associated with the proscribed TLP.

Mr Ahmad says he was neither informed of the allegation nor given an opportunity to respond to it before the commission disposed of his appeal.

He subsequently filed a review petition on June 18, followed by reminders on July 7, July 28 and August 10. However, the commission dismissed the review in an order dated August 18, stating that he had remained “absent throughout the proceedings.”

Mr Ahmad has disputed the observation, saying that he was never served any notice informing him of a hearing date or requiring his personal attendance. He also said that he visited the PIC office on August 18 to inquire about the case but was not allowed to meet the information commissioners or informed about the order.

He further said that the order was not formally served on him and was shared through WhatsApp only on August 31 after he contacted the commission himself.

The journalist has now served a legal notice on Chief Information Commissioner Muhammad Malik Bhalla and Information Commissioner Bushra Saqib, warning that he may approach the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution if the commission does not provide relief in accordance with law.

The case has also drawn criticism from former information commissioners and RTI activists.

RTI activist and Citizen Commission for Equality and Human Rights member Naeem Sadiq said the two PIC orders suggested “not a commission but a militant mafia that will find any excuse to suppress the citizens’ right to information.”

Former Punjab Chief Information Commissioner Mehboob Qadir Shah said a serious allegation that an RTI activist was associated with a proscribed organisation could not fairly be made in a public order without giving the person an opportunity to explain or defend himself.

He said such conduct offended “procedural due process”, which required notice, an opportunity to respond and a fair and neutral hearing before an adverse order was passed.

Mr Shah added that even if the commission merely reproduced the PIO’s allegation, dismissing the RTI appeal on its basis necessarily implied that the commission had relied upon or endorsed the allegation. “Mr Naeem was condemned unheard,” he said.

Former Chief Information Commissioner of Pakistan Muhammad Azam said the personal presence of an RTI complainant was not required and recalled that until 2022, many cases had been decided even though complainants had never attended a hearing.

The former Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Information Commission chief information commissioner, Sahibzada Muhammad Khalid, stressed the importance of making RTI accessible to ordinary citizens, saying the system could succeed only when the public knew about and could exercise its right to information.

The controversy has consequently raised a broader concern: if a public body can avoid disclosure merely by making unverified allegations against an information seeker, and if the transparency commission accepts those allegations without giving the citizen a meaningful opportunity to respond, the RTI mechanism itself risks being weakened.

The central concern is that the PIC’s stance effectively gives the police and other public bodies a free hand to dodge accountability whenever they want simply by levelling baseless allegations against citizens. When an institution mandated to guarantee transparency adopts such an approach, it should be treated as a critical red alert, as it threatens to render the entire RTI framework redundant.