Fafen urges reforms to address gaps in Punjab’s right to information law

ISLAMABAD: Free and Fair Election Network (Fafen) has called for reforms to address gaps in the implementation of the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act (PTRIA) 2013.

In a policy brief titled “Strengthening the RTI Framework in Punjab”, Fafen urged close collaboration among the provincial assembly of Punjab, Punjab Information Commission, and civil society to transform the PTRIA’s promise into practice. The policy brief is part of Fafen’s “Countering Disinformation through Information” campaign.

The law, since its enactment in 2013, established the institutional framework for citizens to exercise their right to information (RTI) as well as to ensure transparency in the provincial public bodies in compliance with the Article 19A of the Constitution.

Since the PTRIA’s enactment, RTI implementation in Punjab has progressed steadily with the formation of the Punjab Information Commission (PIC) and the finalisation of Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Rules in 2014.

Earlier this month, Fafen conducted an assessment of proactive disclosures of legally-required information by Punjab public bodies. The assessment covered over 250 Punjab government websites and revealed that public bodies proactively disclosed around 52 percent of legally mandated information.

This brief synthesises these reviews, assessments, and a thorough analysis of the PTRIA 2013 and its rules to identify gaps in law and practice, benchmarked against national and international standards.

TRIA 2013 is generally considered a strong law with the provisions matching the globally-recognised RTI standards. The law applies to all public bodies operating in the legislative, executive and judicial domains within the Punjab province and also extends to the local governments in the province.

It mandates proactive disclosures of general information about the public bodies including their functions, services, budgets and beneficiaries of government subsidies, rebates and relief programs.

The Act also requires the public bodies to designate Public Information Officers (PIOs) for handling information requests. A unique feature of the Act is granting the right to request information to both natural and legal persons i.e. legally registered organisations, which is absent from other RTI laws in Pakistan.

The process of requesting information is simple and free with specific response time set as 14 days. Although the law provides a list of exempted information, it also includes a public interest override clause to waive the exemptions if disclosure benefits the public interest.

The Punjab Information Commission constituted under the PTRIA is the appellate forum to adjudicate appeals against denied requests or procedural lapses. The Commission can impose penalties on non-compliant officials that include fines or disciplinary action against officials of public bodies for unjustified delays, rejections, or providing false information.

The PTRIA, despite its progressive provisions, faced implementation challenges forcing the judicial interventions for the enforcement of citizen’s right to information.

The Fafen believes many of these challenges are rooted in the legal ambiguities and institutional weaknesses. Therefore, it reviewed the PTRIA and Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Rules to identify these gaps in the framework and drafted recommendations for removing these gaps informed by the findings of Fafen’s assessment of transparency in provincial public bodies.

Fafen’s assessment highlights a significant number of public bodies lack understanding of their responsibilities under the PTRIA 2013.

Over 80 percent of 250 public bodies whom Fafen sent a request for information about their annual reports on compliance with the requirements of PTRIA under Section 9 lacked awareness about this requirement.

Similarly, public bodies had made available only 52 percent of the legally mandated proactive disclosures on their websites.

While the PTRIA and its rules empower the PIC to facilitate public bodies in implementing the law, the Commission lacks powers to issue binding instructions to the public bodies in these matters.

Rather its enforcing powers are limited to the decisions on the complaints filed by citizens aggrieved with public bodies response to their application for information.

Although the PTRIA encourages electronic record keeping and information sharing practices, it falls short of mandating or prioritising the dissemination of information through official websites.

The Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Rules of 2014 also do little to clarify the mode of proactive disclosure, leaving public bodies uncertain about what information must be made public and how.

The online dissemination of information about public bodies and their services is critical in this era when digital technologies are transforming governance.

A lack of legal emphasis on the use of digital technology misses a critical opportunity to enhance public accessibility in an increasingly online world.

Several key terms used across the legal text are either vaguely defined or their definitions are left open, creating room for their arbitrary interpretation.

For instance, while the public body’s definition covers non-government organisations (NGOs) receiving funds, it falls short of including private businesses and companies receiving government contracts, tax rebates and concessions.

Similarly, the words working days, record and document are not explicitly defined in the PTRIA. The Fafen’s assessment found that a majority of the public bodies took longer than legally-mandated timeline of 14 working days.

Such practices may be justified by hiding behind an interpretation of a working day that goes against the spirit of the law.

A critical challenge to the protection of right to information is lack of operational and financial autonomy of the Punjab Information Commission.

Under the existing frameworks, the selection of the Information Commissioners is completely controlled by the provincial government, lacking the bipartisan oversight mechanisms that bolster the independence of such bodies.

The removal process is equally discretionary, placing the commission’s autonomy at risk. The weak provisions led to a controversy recently when the caretaker provincial government arbitrarily removed the Information Commissioners in 2024.

Moreover, the PTRIA does not provide a binding timeline for filling in the casual vacancies in the Information Commission or make fresh appointments after completion of the term of an Information Commissioner.

Financially, Section 14 ties the commission to government allocations without establishing an independent fund, making it vulnerable to budgetary pressures or political influence.

While mere constitution of an Information Commission could be considered a win at the time the law was first enacted, it is about time that it is made autonomous and independent for more effective role in promoting transparency.

The Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Rules of 2014 rules empower the Information Commission to issue directions about the form of computerisation, the design of the online system and categories of records required to be computerised.

Additionally, it is tasked to facilitate the implementation of the Act for trainings to Public Information Officers. Yet, the proactively disclosed information remains in largely an unstandardized manner.

Record management is another weak link as the PTRIA does not empower the Commission to issue binding directives on how records should be maintained or to conduct inspections of public bodies’ record-keeping practices.

While the existing practice allows for electronic submission of information requests to public bodies and complaints to PIC through emails, a comprehensive digital complaint handling mechanism is missing.

The existing complaints tracking utility available on the PIC’s website also remains dysfunctional.

The manual processing of complaints may limit the PIC’s efficiency by hampering the swift communication with the complainants.

Lack of safety and privacy provisions for applicants contrary to the international best practices, the PTRIA lacks strong safety provisions for the whistleblowers using their right to information to expose malpractices and corruption in public affairs.

Although the extension of RTI to legal persons in addition to the natural persons provide some safeguards to individuals by enabling them to hide behind organisational cover, the anonymous applications are not allowed.

In fact, the particulars of the applicants are regularly published by the public bodies and the Information Commission in their reports and websites, risking any vindictive actions against them by persons feeling aggrieved by their information requests.

To address the abovementioned legal lacunae and operational challenges in the exercise of RTI, Fafen proposes the following reforms.

The Provincial Assembly of Punjab should consider the following amendments to the PTRIA: Add/expand the following definitions in Section 2: Define the term “working days” as days when government offices are open for regular operations; expand the definition of public body by covering all departments listed in the Punjab Government Rules of Business 2011.

Moreover, in addition to the NGOs receiving funds from the government, any private companies or businesses receiving government contracts, tax rebates or concessions, subsidies, and funds from public exchequer should be considered as public body.

Amend the definition of complaint to include the complaints submitted using online system; clarify the definition of right to information by adding the word “understandable, analysed and disaggregated”. Define the term “document” meaning any order or decision made and duly notified. Define the term “employee or official” as a person employed by a public body whether permanently or temporarily and also include consultants.

Define the term “record” as any information which is recorded in any form.

Remove discretionary powers of the provincial government on the appointment and removal of Information Commissioners: Introduce a consultative and bipartisan committee of the provincial assembly of Punjab for the appointment and removal of the Information Commissioners including the Chief Information Commissioner by amending Section 5 of the PTRIA.

Such a process will help insulating the commission from the government influence by taking away the discretion of the provincial government on the appointment and removal of the Information Commissioners.

Add a new section to provide for establishing a Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Fund, comprising government grants, donations, and investment income, with the Chief Information Commissioner as the principal accounting officer. Mandate annual audits by the Auditor General of Pakistan and presentation of reports to the Provincial Assembly.

Empower the Information Commission to issue binding instructions on record maintenance, including periodic inspections. Mandate periodic strategic planning of the Information Commission:

Add a new section to require the Information Commission to develop and publish a five-year strategic plan, outlining objectives, priorities, timelines, and costs, to be laid before the provincial assembly.

This provision, inspired by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, should include a consultation process with the Assembly’s Standing Committee, public bodies, and citizens.

Provide safety and privacy protections for whistleblowers: Add new sections that provide for anonymous applications for information as well as for privacy of applicants’ information provided to the public bodies and the PIC.

The commission, in consultation with public bodies, should develop standardized, citizen-friendly formats for information disclosure, emphasising searchable databases, plain language summaries, and explanatory metadata, akin to practices in advanced RTI regimes.

The commission should establish an online complaint submission and management system for filing and tracking RTI complaints as well as launch sustained awareness campaigns via social media, radio, television, and community programs to educate citizens and public officials about their rights and obligations under the Act.