LAHORE: The Punjab Information Commission (PIC) has ordered the Punjab Judicial Academy (PJA) to provide a copy of a summary about some recruitment, declaring that not even the Lahore High Court is exempt from revealing information under the commission`s governing law.

`Even the Hon`ble Lahore High Court is not exempt from the definition of a public body, as provided in Section 2(h)(iv) of the (Right to Information) Act. Section 13(1)(f) can`t be interpreted to claim exclusion of the PJA by any stretch of imagination,` the commission said.

The verdict came on a petition filed by Ms Asbah of Lahore, whomaintained the PJA authorities hadrefused toprovideherapartof the requested information, stating it was not available.

She apprehended if the information was not available, it might have been destroyed by a senior official as it was about his own appointment.

Doubting the authenticity of the information given, the petitioner demanded she be allowed to inspect the original documents.

The information the petitioner was denied by the PJA included the summary for recruitment of officials.

In reply to a letter by the commission, the PJA claimed that the declined information did not exist in its record.

Later, though the PJA officials concerned did not deny the exist-ence of the summary, they claimed exception under a section of the (Right to Information) Act, which allowed withholding of requested information if its disclosure was likely to cause harm to `the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the administration of justice.

It was further argued that since the PJA was an LHC subsidiary, therefore, in view of the law, `we are exempted`.

While deciding the application, the commission declared that the existence of the information sought was wrongfully denied, possibly with mala fide, by the officials concerned.

`As for the argument that the PJA works under the administration of the LHC chief justice and,therefore, it is exempt from the purview of the (Right to Information) Act, even the LHC is not exempt from the definition of a public body. The exemption clause can`t be used to claim exclusion of the PJA by any stretch of imagination.

`In the instant case, the requested information is about appointments in a public body and its disclosure is not likely to result in any crime or obstruction of justice. On the contrary, maximum disclosure of information and transparency in relation to matters involving use of ofhcial authority or public funds are likely to expose inefficiencies, which is very much in the interest of administration of justice and good governance.

`The PJA, given its mandate totrain judicialofhcers, should set a very high standard of transparency, instead of hiding behind far too stretchedinterpretations ofthe provisions of the Act to seek exemptions to protect the culture of official secrecy.

`The said summary is about appointments in a government organisation that runs on taxpayers` money and, therefore, people have the right to know how the relevant appointments were made,` the commission declared, asking the PJA to provide the required information by June 30.

It has also asked the head of the academy to order an inquiry as to why the said summary was wrongfully denied to the complainant and was not even submitted before the commission.