More than a decade has passed since Pakistan introduced its Right to Information (RTI) laws at the federal and provincial levels. However, the state of implementation remains dismal. While government departments have shown little progress in ensuring compliance, the Information Commissions tasked with enforcing these laws have also failed to demonstrate competence, independence, or commitment to their legal mandate.
One of the most frustrating experiences for citizens arises when a public body outright refuses to provide requested information or deploys delay tactics aimed at exhausting the applicant. Instead of stepping in to protect citizens’ constitutional right of access to information, the Commissions often side with bureaucratic authorities, effectively becoming part of the problem rather than the solution.
To illustrate this failure, I would like to share a recent example involving the Pakistan Information Commission (PIC) and the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA).
On 1 August 2024, I submitted a request to NEPRA under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, seeking data related to the tariffs and capacity charges of Independent Power Producers (IPPs). When no response was provided, I filed an appeal with the PIC on 19 August 2024. Shockingly, even after three months, the Commission did not issue a notice to NEPRA.
Only after I sent a reminder email on 19 November 2024 did NEPRA respond, on 4 December, with a vague letter claiming that the requested information was “available on their website” but without providing any direct links or specific details. I filed a second appeal with the Commission on 16 December.
Then came an even more concerning development. I received a letter via WhatsApp from an unidentified mobile number, allegedly from the PIC, stating that I had not submitted the RTI request or dispatch receipt to the Commission—an inaccurate and unprofessional claim. These documents had been provided with my original appeal on 19 August. This mode of communication—WhatsApp, rather than formal correspondence—was highly unprofessional for a constitutional body.
Despite these legal provisions, the Punjab Information Commission chose to remain passive, shielding the responsible officials from accountability and allowing impunity to prevail
I responded formally by filing a complaint with the Commission via email on 19 December 2024. On 27 December, I again emailed the Commission, attaching all necessary documents: the original RTI request, the dispatch receipt to NEPRA, and a copy of the WhatsApp message received. I reiterated my demand for legal action against NEPRA for its failure to provide the requested information within the legally mandated time frame.
Nonetheless, on 11 March 2025, the PIC summarily dismissed my appeal, stating that NEPRA had provided the information. This was entirely false. The letter from NEPRA’s legal advisor, attached to the PIC’s dismissal order, merely repeated the same vague statement about the data being on the website, without a link or certified confirmation.
NEPRA’s response was in clear violation of Section 13(3) of the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, which requires that any information provided under an RTI request must be accompanied by a certificate confirming its accuracy, signed and stamped by a competent officer.
On 18 March 2025, I sent another email to the PIC highlighting these irregularities. I received no response. Even my follow-up email on 5 May was ignored. This persistent silence raises serious concerns about the PIC’s ability or willingness to enforce the law, particularly against powerful institutions like NEPRA.
This inaction contradicts the very spirit and text of the RTI law. According to Section 17(3)(a) of the 2017 Act, the Commission is legally bound to decide appeals within 60 days. Furthermore, under Section 22(1)(d), a penalty of up to Rs. 50,000 can be imposed on officials for failure to provide information. Section 22(2) goes even further, prescribing up to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100,000 for intentional obstruction of access to information.
Despite these provisions, the Commission has done nothing to hold NEPRA accountable or to ensure I receive the information I am legally entitled to.
In another case, on 13 December 2023, I filed an RTI request under the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2013, seeking details regarding the use of official vehicles by the Deputy Commissioner (DC) Faisalabad. Despite the legally mandated time frame, no information was provided. Consequently, I submitted an appeal to the Punjab Information Commission (PIC) on 1 January 2024. In response, the DC Office declined to disclose the information, citing it as "sensitive."
Shockingly, instead of enforcing transparency, the PIC accepted this weak justification and issued an order instructing me to visit the DC Office in person to inspect the record. The order further stated that I had the right to photograph the documents and request hard copies.
However, even after multiple visits to the DC Office, I was denied access to the actual record. Worse still, I was subjected to coercion and pressure to withdraw my appeal. I refused to do so.
Subsequently, the Public Information Officer (PIO), Additional Deputy Commissioner Qaiser Javed, summoned me to his office. Instead of providing access to official records, he presented me with a few printed pages in Urdu, listing the DC’s participation in various public events. These documents were irrelevant to my request regarding the use of government vehicles. In direct violation of the PIC’s orders, I was also denied permission to take photographs of these documents.
Upon examining these pages, it became apparent that they were fabricated. One example noted that the DC accompanied a student appointed as "DC for a day" on 28 January 2023 whereas, in fact, the event took place on 7 November 2022. This deliberate falsification constituted a clear attempt by the PIO to mislead and obstruct access to accurate information, violating both the letter and spirit of the RTI law.
I submitted a formal complaint to the Punjab Information Commission on 22 February 2025, and made multiple attempts to follow up directly with Commission staff and members. Yet, no action was taken against the PIO. Despite sending two reminder emails on 18 March and 14 May, there was no response. Instead, the Commission marked my appeal as sine die adjourned (postponed indefinitely), effectively shelving the case without justification.
Under Section 15 of the Punjab RTI Act, knowingly providing false, incomplete, or misleading information is a punishable offence, warranting a fine of up to Rs. 50,000 or the equivalent of two days’ salary. Furthermore, Section 16 allows for imprisonment of up to two years and/or a fine of up to Rs. 10,000 for obstructing access to information.
Despite these legal provisions, the Punjab Information Commission chose to remain passive, shielding the responsible officials from accountability and allowing impunity to prevail.
This failure is not limited to my case. In most appeals, the Information Commissions do not compare the information supplied by public bodies with the original RTI requests to verify if the response is complete or relevant. Instead, the Commission acts as a mere post office forwarding responses without scrutiny, often ignoring whether the applicant’s questions were answered at all. This negligence causes applicants tremendous mental stress and waste of time. The Commission’s strategy appears to rely on exhausting the applicant into abandoning their case.
This alarming state of affairs underscores the urgent need for reform within the RTI ecosystem. Transparency and accountability must begin with the Information Commissions themselves.
Civil society, RTI activists, and the media must raise their voices more effectively. The Commission must not be reduced to just another bureaucratic body offering high salaries and perks without delivering meaningful public service.
A path forward lies in the creation of a broad-based alliance of civil society organisations, RTI campaigners, journalists, and reform-minded professionals. This alliance should closely monitor the performance of the Information Commissions—particularly backlog and handling of appeals—and regularly publish quarterly and annual performance reports.
Additionally, this coalition could collaborate with international RTI networks to adopt best practices and pressure Pakistani Commissions to become more transparent, responsive, tech-enabled, and citizen-friendly rather than a convenient retirement home for bureaucrats and a safe haven for public officials who defy transparency laws.
The right to information is not a privilege; it is a constitutional right. When its enforcement bodies falter or collude with the violators, citizens must unite to reclaim and protect this right.