LAHORE: Escalating proceedings against the Islamabad Club over its refusal to disclose official records, the Pakistan Information Commission (PIC) has issued a show cause notice to the club’s secretary for failing to implement its earlier order directing the release of information sought under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, while warning that statutory penalty proceedings could be initiated for withholding public information.
In an order issued, a copy of which is available with Daily Jang, the commission observed that despite receiving its June 3 decision directing disclosure of the requested record within 10 days, the Islamabad Club neither complied with the order nor appeared before the commission at the scheduled hearing.
The commission recorded that its June 3 order had been dispatched to the secretary of the Islamabad Club through Pakistan Post under registered mail and was delivered on June 16, as confirmed through postal tracking. It further noted that notice of the July 9 hearing was issued on June 24 and delivered on July 2.
Despite service of both the implementation order and hearing notice, no representative of the Islamabad Club appeared before the commission.
“Non appearance seems to be intentional and undesirable,” the commission observed, directing issuance of a show cause notice requiring the secretary of the Islamabad Club to explain why a penalty should not be imposed and why proceedings under Section 20(1)(f) of the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017 should not be initiated against him for delaying implementation of the commission’s order and withholding information.
The commission further directed that a copy of the show-cause notice be forwarded to the secretary of the Cabinet Division with instructions to ensure implementation of the commission’s June 3 order.
The latest order follows a landmark decision delivered on June 3 by Chief Information Commissioner Ijaz Hassan Awan and Information Commissioner Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui in Appeal No. 5130-11/2025, in which the commission declared the Islamabad Club to be a “public body” within the meaning of the Right of Access to Information Act and ordered disclosure of most of the information sought by citizen Saddia Mazhar.
The appeal arose after the applicant alleged that the Islamabad Club had failed to respond to her request seeking extensive information regarding the administration, finances, land holdings and commercial activities of the club.
The information request sought the club’s total membership, criteria governing membership, details of all properties, shops, restaurants and commercial outlets leased or rented by the club, including the names of tenants, dates of lease awards and rental amounts, details of trainers and coaches employed by the club along with their salaries, the date of the last audit together with a certified copy of the audit report, total land acquired on lease, land converted for commercial purposes, a certified copy of the latest lease agreement executed with the government and details of funds or grants received from the federal government since January 2024.
The applicant had also sought details regarding private events held at the Rawalpindi Gymkhana Club and the revenue generated from those events.
In its written reply, submitted through advocates Wasim Abid and Qazi Ahmed Zafar, the Islamabad Club contested the appeal on multiple legal grounds.
It argued that the applicant was not entitled to seek the information because she was not a member of the club and therefore lacked locus standi. It further maintained that only information relating to matters of public importance could be sought under Article 19-A of the Constitution and asserted that issues concerning the club were already pending adjudication before the Islamabad High Court in several constitutional petitions.
The club also contended that it was originally incorporated as a company limited by guarantee but subsequently ceased to have an independent juristic personality after transfer of its administration to an administrator appointed under the Islamabad Club (Administration) Ordinance, 1978. Consequently, it argued, the club itself could neither sue nor be sued.
The respondent further claimed that it received no funding or budgetary allocation from the federal government and requested the commission to suspend further proceedings until disposal of the pending constitutional petitions before the Islamabad High Court.
After receiving the club’s reply, the commission shared it with the applicant, who filed a detailed rejoinder disputing the respondent’s assertions.
She pointed out that, according to the Islamabad Club’s own official website, the club occupies approximately 352 acres of public land. Referring to historical records, she stated that around 244 acres had originally been leased to the club by the Capital Development Authority in 1967 at the nominal rate of Re1 per acre for the first ten years, with provision for revision thereafter. She further asserted that the lease terms had reportedly never been revised and that an additional 108 acres had subsequently been acquired, bringing the club’s total landholding to approximately 352 acres.
When the appeal was fixed for hearing after submission of the rejoinder, no representative of the Islamabad Club appeared despite prior notice, nor was any response filed to rebut the applicant’s submissions. The commission, therefore, proceeded ex parte.
In its detailed judgment, the commission comprehensively rejected each of the objections raised by the Islamabad Club.
Addressing the principal question of jurisdiction, the commission held that the Islamabad Club squarely fell within the definition of a public body under Section 2(ix)(h) of the Right of Access to Information Act because it continued to retain approximately 352 acres of valuable state land under a lease agreement at the nominal rate of Re1 per acre.
The commission observed that the applicant’s assertions regarding the concessional lease had remained unrebutted by the Islamabad Club.
It further noted that a notification issued by the Cabinet Division on April 14, 2020 categorised the Islamabad Club as an autonomous body under the Cabinet Division, thereby independently bringing it within the ambit of Section 2(ix)(a) of the Right of Access to Information Act.
The commission also examined the legal status of the Islamabad Club under the Islamabad Club (Administration) Ordinance, 1978, observing that the ordinance dissolved the club’s previous corporate structure, vested its affairs in an administrator appointed from the public sector, authorised the government to appoint its management committee and designated the President of Pakistan as patron of the club.
In view of these statutory arrangements, the commission ruled that the Islamabad Club qualified as a public body under Sections 2(ix)(a), 2(ix)(b) and 2(ix)(h) of the Act.
The commission also rejected the contention that only club members were entitled to seek information, observing that Section 11 of the Right of Access to Information Act confers an unqualified right upon every citizen of Pakistan to request information from a public body.
Similarly, it dismissed the argument that the information sought was not related to matters of public importance.
The commission observed that where hundreds of acres of valuable state land were being utilised by a club under a lease carrying nominal charges of Re1 per acre, citizens unquestionably possessed the constitutional right under Article 19-A to know how such public assets were being managed and utilised.
Rejecting the respondent’s reliance on pending litigation before the Islamabad High Court, the commission clarified that no proceedings concerning the present appeal were pending before the court and that no stay order had been granted restraining the commission from exercising its jurisdiction.
The judgment also emphasised the broader objectives underlying the Right of Access to Information Act, observing that the legislation was enacted to give practical effect to the constitutional guarantee of access to information, strengthen transparency and accountability, promote public participation in governance, improve good governance, reduce corruption and inefficiency and ensure greater openness in public administration.
After examining the information request, the commission held that the material sought constituted public record held by the Islamabad Club and that the respondent had neither claimed any exemption available under the Right of Access to Information Act nor established that the requested information was legally protected from disclosure.
The commission, however, excluded one query relating to private events organised by the Rawalpindi Gymkhana Club, holding that it concerned a separate entity and therefore did not fall within the scope of the Islamabad Club’s obligations.
Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed, and the secretary of the Islamabad Club was directed to provide all remaining requested information simultaneously to the applicant and the Pakistan Information Commission within 10 days.
Copies of the June 3 order were also sent to the administrator of the Islamabad Club and the secretary of the Cabinet Division for implementation. With the expiry of the compliance period and continued non-observance of the commission’s directions, the matter has now entered the enforcement stage, exposing the club’s secretary to possible statutory penalties under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017.
