as bailable, non-cognizable and triable by the district and sessions court instead of High Court as is the case with other provinces where the RTI law is enacted.
It drew widespread criticism and led to an intensive correspondence among Provincial Information Department, RTIC and Law Department.
The Secretary Information on July 8, 2015 wrote to the RTIC that after feedback from the media on the amendments to the RTI law it would not go the full mile in strengthening the law and procedure. His letter also referred to the views expressed on the replacement of “court” in the act with the district and sessions court, not High Court, which may also undermine the decisions of the RTIC.
It also said that examples of other commissions are being given where appeals under the RTI law rest with the concerned high court.
Acknowledging the Information Department’s contention, the RTIC said in its July 24 letter that usually appeals are made by government servants to the Services Tribunal against any decision against a government servant. It said there are public bodies which may not come under the purview of the Services Tribunal and the high court is the proper forum for the appeals under the RTI law.
However, the Law Department in its July 28 letter to Information Department expressed disagreement to the view of considering high court as appellate authority, adding that proper forum for appeal against the decisions of the RTIC on the analogy of civil court is the district court of the district concerned. Nonetheless, it at the same time advised the administration department to prepare a bill by incorporating the requisite amendments. When contacted, provincial Information Minister Mushtaq Ghani said he had received the file seeking amendments to the RTI law and his ministry was actively considering it for taking it up in the coming assembly session. However, he said the amendment brought through the private member’s bill excluding the provincial assembly as public body would be reversed next week.