Right to information

Article 19A of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to have access to information in all matters of public importance, subject only to reasonable restriction imposed by law

Through the Eighteenth Amendment, the framers of the Constitution elevated this entitlement to the status of a fundamental right, thereby recognizing transparency and accountability as essential features of democratic governance

To give effect to this constitutional guarantee, the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017 was enacted, providing a mechanism through which citizens may exercise their right to obtain information held by public bodies

The right to information lies at the very heart of constitutional democracy

Article 19A of the Constitution imposes a positive constitutional obligation upon every public authority to facilitate citizen's access to information and to proactively disclose matters of public importance

The guarantee extends to all organs of the State without exception.

A public information officer may refuse an application for access to information where disclosure of the information shall or is likely to cause harm to a legitimate privacy interest, unless the person concerned has consented to disclosure of the information

Such provision gives the power to public information officer to refuse the application for access to information where such disclosure of information is likely to harm the legitimate privacy or interest of individual unless the person concerned has consented to disclosure of information

Right to information under Art. 19-A of the Constitution and the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2013 does not extend to any 'legitimate privacy interest' of an individual guaranteed under Arts. 9 & 14 of the Constitution and protected under S. 13(1)(b) of the Act ibid.

Expression 'privacy of home' used in Art. 14 of the Constitution is not restricted to the physical house of a person but it covers the entire treasure of his personal life, as the privacy attaches to the person, not to the place where it is associated

The right to privacy involves the protection of individuals from unwarranted intrusion into their personal lives.

The religion of Islam, undoubtedly is a complete and comprehensive code of life which provides full protection to privacy and confidentiality of every individual

It also emphasizes the importance as a mandatory injunction qua spying on others or unwarranted intrusion into their private personal affairs

In this regard, reference is made to Ayat No.12 of Surah Al-Hujurat.

Brief facts of the matter were that the appellant, filed complaints under Art. 19-A of the Constitution read with S. 3 of the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2013 (the "Act 2013") before the Punjab Information Commission (the "Commission"), seeking detailed information from the Excise and Taxation Department (the "Department"), regarding the Excise and Taxation officer, inspectors, zone numbers and names of property circles, etc.

The Commission directed the Department to disclose the information, however, the Department resisted, citing S. 13(1)(b) of the Act, 2013, which exempted disclosure of information violating individual privacy

The Department challenged the Commission's orders through Constitutional petition

The Single Judge-in-Chambers accepted the Constitutional petition while setting aside the Commission's orders, holding that the requested information fell within the domain of protected privacy

The appellant filed the present appeal (I.C.A) challenging the decision passed in the Constitutional petition

Moot point of the matter was as to "whether the scope of the fundamental right to access information, as enshrined under Art. 19-A of the Constitution, and the provisions of the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2013, permitted the disclosure of personal information of taxpayer maintained by a public body, or whether such disclosure was lawfully barred under S. 13(1)(b) of the Act 2013 on the ground that it would cause harm to a legitimate privacy interest of individuals"

Held: The right to information was primarily intended to give access to the citizen to the information gathered and maintained by public authorities to ensure that government was functioning in a transparent manner and accountable to the people it served

By allowing individuals to have access to the information qua government activities, income, expenditure, policies, and decision-making, helps to prevent corruption, abuse of power, and promotes better governance

However, the Act 2013 ibid provides certain exception as under S. 13(1)(b) of the Act ibid any request to provide information which violates the privacy of an individual can validly be withheld

This was rooted in the idea that while the public has the right to know about the workings of government, the life of a private individual should be respected and protected

The privacy directly related to an individual's personal life, such as their name, address, phone number, family details, medical history, financial status, etc. which had validly been safeguarded in almost every law

Admittedly, the substantial information as permissible under the Act 2013 was already provided to the appellant by the respondent No.1/Department through the Commission/respondent No.2

The appellant made request for getting information qua disclosures of names of taxpayer and information regarding individual properties owned by different taxpayers but imparting of requisite information was subject to an unambiguous consent of said individual otherwise request could validly be regretted under S. 13(1)(b) of the Act ibid

The Commission in blatant excess of its jurisdiction passed the orders, whereby, the respondent No.1/ Department was directed to provide private information of the individuals to the appellant, thus the Single Judge in Chamber had rightly allowed the Constitutional petition of the respondent No.1/ Department and set aside the aforesaid orders of the Commission being violative to the above said provision of law and same was immune from any inference by the High Court through the present Intra Court Appeal

Intra Court Appeal being devoid of any merits was dismissed in limine.

Such right is often considered essential for functioning of democratic societies and is closely linked to the principles of transparency, accountability and right to freedom of expression

Right to information empowers individuals to assess information held by public authorities fostering informed decision-making and civic engagements and preventing corruption

Article 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted in 1948 enshrines right to information, which states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this right includes freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers"

Such provision lays foundation for right to information as an integral component of freedom of expression

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), another cornerstone of international human right law, reinforces the right to information in Art. 19, which echoes sentiments expressed in UDHR emphasizing significance of freedom of expression and recognizing pivotal role of access to information

Regional human rights instruments such as European Convention on Human Rights, (ECHR) and American Convention on Human Rights incorporate provisions related to right to information

Provision of Article 10.1 of ECHR states:"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers"

On a global scale, United Nations (UN) has been actively promoting right to information

U.N. General Assembly in its resolution 59/1 recognized "freedom of information as a fundamental human right and…. the touchstone of all the freedoms to which United Nations is consecrated."

U.N. also designated September 28 as International Day for Universal Access to Information to emphasize importance of such right

Right to information is not absolute

Legal provisions often allow for restrictions, particularly in national security, public order and safety, personal privacy, commercial interests, law enforcement, state secrets, intellectual property rights and prevention of hate speech and defamation

Challenge lies in balancing right to access information and other societal interests

International human rights instruments stress that any restriction should be prescribed by law, and should be necessary, proportionate and serve legitimate objectives.

Ex-officio Justice of Peace declined to issue any direction and Safe Cities Authority ("the Authority") also did not provide such data

Validity

Application of petitioner to the Authority was not maintainable as it was on plain paper and not in the prescribed form (EDR Form)

Punjab Safe Cities Authority, under Regln. 9 (1) of Punjab Safe Cities Authority Electronic Data Regulations, 2016,was not authorized to entertain requests for private persons for the provision of any data

Only investigating officers, Law Enforcement Agencies, Courts, Tribunals or other authorized persons could collect specific data for a particular purpose in manners, and in matters under inquiry or investigation, or cases pending adjudication

Punjab Safe Cities Authority ('PSCA') rightly declined request of petitioner

Petitioners application before PSCA was not maintainable

Petitioner had remedies available under Police Orders, 2002 and Ss.551 & 156(3), Cr.P.C. but she did not pursue them

Petitioner filed application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. before Ex-officio Justice of Peace, who dismissed the same on the premise that it would constitute interference in the investigation, which was prohibited under the law

Ex-officio Justice of Peace erred in such determination as per Khizar Hayat's case, reported as PLD 2005 Lahore 470, he could issue directives to senior police officers to redress petitioner's grievance

Petitioner filed Constitutional petition 2 months and 12 days after the incident regarding which she had a cross version

By that time the video recordings had already been disposed of by Punjab Safe Cities Authorities

Call Data Records (CDRs) mentioned by petitioner had already been obtained by investigating officer during the pendency of petition before High Court and were placed on file

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner failed to point out the matter of public importance in seeking such information, while invoking Art. l9-A of the Constitution

Petitioner could not justify invoking of jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Exercise of such right to information was subject to regulation and reasonable restrictions imposed by law

Goal of Sindh Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2016 was to spread information in public interest but at the same time transparency in spreading information should be observed and system of a functionary should not be hampered

For seeking access to such information a person should bear in mind the fact that he has to mention the significance of such information by showing public interest

Transparency is absolutely necessary

Response given by Information Commission through order in question was appropriate and according to its domain to safeguard the functions and working of an organization

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Information Commissioner in exercising its powers under Constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Article 19A of the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the fundamental right of having access to information in all matters of public importance

Exercise of this right is subject to regulation and reasonable restrictions imposed by law

Expression 'subject to regulation and reasonable restrictions' does not and cannot confer competence upon the legislature to abridge, impair, restrict or curtail the scope of the constitutionally guaranteed right by granting outright or indiscriminate exclusion to a public entity

Right under Article 19A is related to access to information in all matters of public importance, including information regarding public bodies.

Details of such information sought by the petitioner and the consequent directions issued by the Supreme Court stated.

What previously may have been on a need-to-know basis Article 19A of the Constitution has transformed it to a right-to-know

Burden has shifted from those seeking information to those who want to conceal it

Access to information is no longer a discretion granted through occasional benevolence, but is now a fundamental right available with every Pakistani which right may be invoked under Article 19A of the Constitution

Access to information secures the well-being of the people.

Approach of the Supreme Court to the interpretation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution has been progressive, liberal and dynamic

Therefore, provisions of Article 19A of the Constitution have to be interpreted with a progressive, liberal and dynamic approach with which the Supreme Court has been interpreting the other fundamental rights and the Court has to explore the modern means of enforcement of the right guaranteed by Article 19A, which have been made available by the latest technology of the day.

Article 19A of the Constitution creates a positive obligation on all State organs, authorities and institutions, including the Judiciary, to take the necessary measures to ensure the realization of the fundamental right of citizens to have access to information in matters of public importance.

Provisions of Article 19A of the Constitution do not contain an abstract guiding principle, rather confer a justiciable right

Right to have access to information in all matters of public importance conferred by Article 19A is a corrective apparatus, which allows public scrutiny to the working of the public authorities and institutions, and makes them answerable to the public, thus, it ensures transparency and accountability in the functioning of all public authorities and institutions

Right conferred by Article 19A is effective in operation and extensive in scope: it is though subject to, but is not dependent for its effectiveness upon enactment of, a law that may provide for the regulation of, and reasonable restrictions on, such right and it comprehends all matters of public importance undertaken by all State institutions.

Petitioner sought a direction to the Secretary, Ministry of Interior to provide information about the cases pending against him in the Provinces of Sindh and Balochistan as well as with Federal Investigation Agency with respect to the Social media tweets made by him against Armed Forces of Pakistan

Petitioner in order to fortify his case placed reliance on Serial No. 18 of Entry No. 18 to the Second Schedule of the Rules of Business, 1973 ('Serial No.18') which provided for coordination of policy matters, relating to Police

Likewise, reference was also made to Art. 149 of the Constitution, which empowered the Federal Government to issue directions to the Provinces

Validity

Examination of the Serial No. 18 showed that it did not confer any right in any citizen/individual to seek information regarding pendency of cases

Stretching the concepts provided in Art. 149 and the Rules of Business, 1973, did not entitle the petitioner in any manner to seek such information

No person could be arrested for an offence without being informed of the grounds of such arrest

On one cause more than one FIR cannot be registered against a person

Only first FIR prevailed and other cases succumbed to the first one and in such regard, the petitioner would be entitled to seek appropriate remedy before the Court(s) of competent jurisdiction

Since the other cases had been registered against the petitioner beyond the territorial jurisdiction of (Islamabad) High Court, no writ could be issued against the Provinces of Balochistan and Sindh

Writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Distribution of State land amongst those in service of Pakistan (including judges of superior judiciary and members of the Armed Forces)

Neither the Constitution nor any law provided for such distribution

Affront to the people was confounded when information with regard to distribution of State/ummah's land was kept under wraps

People had every right to know what was given to those in the service of Pakistan and holding constitutional positions

To withhold such information from the people was unconstitutional

Constitutional goal of 'creating an egalitarian society was undermined when public land furtively found its way into private hands

His Lordship observed that since the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 was enacted to ensure accountability, transparency and good governance by optimizing the free flow of information', therefore, a copy of present judgment should be sent to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority ('PEMRA') which should send copies onwards to its licencees, who may want to broadcast it; and that PEMRA should ensure that such broadcasts were unimpeded.

Petitioner was well entitled to get her grievance redressed under S.3 of Punjab Transparency and Information Act, 2013, which provided that any person could exercise right to information in the manner prescribed by Punjab Transparency and Information Act, 2013

F.I.R. was public document and every person had a right to obtain copy of the same

Petitioner neither opted to avail that adequate alternate recourse to get requisite information regarding criminal cases of her son nor alleged or proved inadequacy or inefficacy of such alternate remedy

High Court before granting relief to a person by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction must satisfy itself regarding non-availability of any alternate remedy

High Court observed if the Court was inclined to grant relief even in presence of alternate remedy, it should be satisfied that circumstances of case had made other remedy inadequate

In presence of availability of alternate adequate remedy, an aggrieved person could approach High Court only in exceptional circumstances, when available alternative remedies were inadequate to redress grievance of petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner being an elected councillor pointed out certain illegalities in ongoing development works in his constituency of District Council and as such approached the respondent-authorities making a request to provide him record of development work for the relevant financial years as well as record of tenders of repairs of government buildings etc.

Petitioner filed a number of applications before the respondent-authorities but all his efforts proved fruitless

Held, that under Art.19-A of the Constitution every citizen had been conferred a right to have access to information

However, such right was available only if the matter related to public importance

Enforcement of this right had been further made subject to certain regulations and reasonable restrictions imposed by law

In the present case, the quality of work done from public exchequer and transparency of actions of government departments in awarding tenders etc. were of vital importance to the public at large

As such the prayer of the petitioner related to issue of public importance

No Regulations so far had been framed under the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2013 ('Act'), however, non-framing of the same could not have the effect of rendering the right to information as nugatory

Even if no regulations were framed under the Act, this right was available to the citizens

In absence of Rules/regulations, it became obligation of the court to determine whether request for information in a particular case or denial thereof was reasonable or an order was without lawful authority or not

High Court directed that the respondent-authorities were to provide requisite information to the petitioner within statutory period of 14 days under the Act; that copy of present order be sent to the Provincial Chief Secretary to take appropriate steps to ensure posting of public information officers and also ensure that the provisions of the Act were implemented in letter and spirit and any violation thereof was seriously noticed; that it would be appreciated that on monthly basis progress report of public information officers of respective government departments were summoned and reviewed by the Provincial Secretary of Information and Culture Department; that an implementation Committee at provincial level may be constituted to examine and improve working of public information officers, take necessary measures for improvement of the working of the departments and to achieve the objects of the Act; that any recommendation/orders of the Provincial Chief Information Commissioner in this regard be implemented by the implementation Committee in public interest

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Right to information was a right that a citizen had, of access to information from the government and statutory bodies that received public funds

Such right was based on the principle that information belonged to the people; it boosted transparency, which in turn strengthened accountability, reduced corruption and improved delivery of public services

Access to information was increasingly recognized as a prerequisite for transparency and accountability of governments, as safeguarding citizens against mismanagement and corruption.

Concept of right of information explained through an example of an exchange between a person and Caliph Umar (second Caliph of Muslims.)

Petitioners were income tax assessees who sought disclosure of parameters for audit by tax authorities as same was matter of public importance

Plea raised by authorities was that parameters for audit could not be disclosed due to confidentiality envisaged by provisions of S. 214-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Validity

Term 'matter of public importance' was a matter which effected and had its repercussions on public at large

Risk parameters for audit of persons or classes of persons under S. 214-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by Federal Board of Revenue were applicable to taxpayers throughout the country

Such was a matter of public importance and provisions of Art. 19-A of the Constitution were attracted in circumstances

Once persons or classes of persons were selected for audit under S. 214-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 they were to be informed about particular risk parameters applied to them for selection of audit if demanded by them for their information

High Court declared that orders for not disclosing specific parameter applied to petitioners for selection of their cases for audit under S. 214-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as illegal, without lawful authority and set aside the same and directed the Federal Board of Revenue to inform petitioners forthwith if requested by them, specific parameters on basis of which their cases were selected for audit under S. 214-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

People of Pakistan have a right to know every public act and everything that is done in public way by public functionaries

Right of information under Arts. 19 & 19-A of the Constitution is fundamental right of every citizen but this right is not absolute

Such right is subject to regulation and reasonable restrictions imposed by law as specifically mentioned in Arts. 19 & 19-A of the Constitution.

Petitioner was a public servant and did not comply with direction of Right to Information Commission (RTIC) and failed to provide record in question

Fine of Rs.25000/- was imposed by RTIC on the petitioner and the same was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Stubborn attitude of petitioner in deliberately not providing documents forced the Commission to take strict action

Proper opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner but he failed to reply or shown good cause for not providing required documents

Petitioner failed to perform his legal obligation and as such fine was rightly imposed upon him by the RTIC

High Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court, as in appeal all points and issues involved in the matter were dealt with elaborately

High Court directed that fine imposed upon petitioner should not have any adverse effect on service career of the petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Public order was a reasonable exception under law to Art. 19A of the Constitution.

Publication which would cause harm or was likely to cause harm to the "administration of justice" including "fair trial" under Art. 10-A of the Constitution, could be restricted and such restriction would be reasonable and valid under the law.

Constitutional petition filed before the High Court seeking to make public a judicial inquiry report prepared by a "One Man Tribunal" relating to an incident in which fourteen (14) people were killed and many injured by the police during a protest staged by a political party

Question as to whether disclosure of said inquiry report shall actually or was likely to cause harm to public order and administration of justice and even if it did, whether in public interest such disclosure would outweigh the harm in terms of S.13(2) of the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2013 and principle of balancing and proportionately; held, that contents of the Tribunal's inquiry report showed that nowhere it was stated or apprehended that the report should not be disclosed or its disclosure would cause or was likely to cause harm to public order

After the incident which resulted in loss of several lives and created unrest in general public and attracted attention of local and international media, the situation did not go beyond ordinary maintenance of law and order, therefore, there was no reason to apprehend that disclosing of real facts regarding the incident, would cause or was likely to cause harm to public order

Provincial Government had not shown real or substantial risk of harm to public order from disclosure of report, which would go beyond ordinary maintenance of law and order situation

Considering the reasons for constitution of Tribunal by the Provincial Government itself, and by applying the test of "proportionality and balancing", the public interest to disclose the inquiry report to public would easily dominate and outweigh the exception of public order

Applying the same test of balancing to the exception of "administration of justice", the task assigned to the Tribunal was to find out the real facts, causes of the incident, the measures taken, fix responsibility if any, and pre and post handling of the incident

Subject matter of the report was regarding the duties of the administration or their negligence to perform such duties but it had no nexus with the determination of cognizable offences which indeed was the job of the investigating agencies

Even otherwise, the report was only a fact finding probe which was neither binding on the Government or investigating agency nor had any evidential value in the eyes of law

With the disclosure of the inquiry report, there was no fear of harm or likely harm to administration of justice including fair trial

Petitioners were not seeking a direction for making the report part of the trial proceedings nor such relief could be granted under the law; instead they were only seeking disclosure of the report to know the real facts which in no way had any effect on the right of fair trial guaranteed under Art.10-A of the Constitution

Provincial Government had an option not to conduct any inquiry into the incident, however, in the public interest and to ensure a transparent and independent inquiry, it requested a judicial inquiry

Once the Provincial Government itself opted for an inquiry through a Judge, then in absence of any provision to the contrary in the Punjab Tribunals of Inquiry Ordinance, 1969, the final report had to be available to public for information and also fair comments in public interest

Provincial Government could not be allowed to say that the report was only for its use and not for the public

When the inquiry was conducted in public interest to find out the real facts and causes of an incident which caused loss of lives and unrest in the general public, then it was not understandable how public interest would be served and unrest in general public satisfied unless the inquiry report with real facts was made available to the general public

High Court directed that copy of the inquiry report of Tribunal shall be supplied to the petitioners for their information, by the concerned official, forthwith; that the inquiry report shall be published by the concerned authorities within 30 days from the announcement of present judgment, and that to ensure a fair trial and administration of justice, the disclosure of the inquiry report shall not impact upon the fate/outcome of the trial in progress in contravention of law applicable thereto.

Petitioner, an investigative journalist, sought direction assailing a proposed acquisition of 51% shares of a private company by a foreign buyer vide a share purchase agreement

Contention of the petitioner inter alia was that the said transaction harmed public interest and was in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and offended Arts.9, 19-A & 26 of the Constitution

Petitioner further contended that per Art. 19-A of the Constitution, the public had right to information in respect of such transactions

Validity

Contention of the petitioner hardly established a public wrong or public injury warranting redressal by High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution and to accept the petitioner's contentions would open door for an invasion of virtually every private transaction on the touchstone of alleged evasion of some duty or tax etc.

High Court observed that High Court should not embark on roving inquiries into private transactions such as that identified by petitioner under banner of "public interest" especially where there were other regulatory authorities in the field mandated by a statutory responsibility of maintaining vigil their respective spheres

Right to information under Art.19-A of the Constitution was of immense value in promoting transparency by ensuring that citizens had knowledge of matters concerning public administration, but the same did not mean that commercial transactions in the private domain which did not have any direct nexus with matter of public administration be opened up for scrutiny before the courts on touchstone of Art.19-A of the Constitution at behest of any member of public whose curiosity may be piqued

Constitutional petition, therefore, did not fall within the domain of "public interest" was not maintainable, and accordingly dismissed.

Constitutional petitions under Art.184(3) of the Constitution concerning accountability of the media and determination of its code of conduct

Right to information

Scope

Creation and utilization of secret funds in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

Disclosure of the nature and use of such funds

Prima facie, in view of the provisions of Art.19A of the Constitution, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was obliged to disclose the nature and use of all funds allocated to it including the secret funds.

Citizens of Pakistan, through Art.19A of the Constitution have been freed from the caprice of a sorry fate and have become independent of whistle-bowlers in foreign lands or the magnanimity of the likes of WikiLeaks or biographies of political actors, to get to the information they are now entitled to as of right under the Constitution, which provides for and makes good a crucial missing element of responsible State governance in the scheme of the Constitution.

Constitutional petitions questioning therein the contents of a Memo. published in a newspaper "Financial Times" London, written by respondent on stated allegations and according to the version of respondent, Memo. in question was prepared/drafted for the purpose of delivering the same to the Chairman of U.S. Joint Chief of Staff through former U.S. National Security Advisor

Contention was that the petitions raised a political question and the Supreme Court, should, therefore, avoid deciding the same

Held, conduct of a government's foreign policy was indeed, by and large, a political question, but the fact was that the present petitions did not require the court to devise the country's foreign policy or to direct the government in that regard

Present petitions had only sought to enforce the people's right to know the truth about what their government and its functionaries, were up to, and that was by no means, a political question and was fully justiciable fundamental right enumerated in Chap. II, of the Constitution no less.

Constitutional petitions questioning therein the contents of a Memo. published in a newspaper "Financial Times" London written by respondent on stated allegations and according to the version of respondent, Memo. in question was prepared/drafted for the purpose of delivering the same to the Chairman of U.S. Joint Chief of Staff through former U.S. National Security advisor

Maintainability

Memo. and the events surrounding it were "matters of public importance" was not contentious between the parties arrayed before the Court

Parties were also agreed that said events should be probed

Petition under Art.184(3) of the Constitution to enforce the Fundamental Right granted by Art.19A of the Constitution therefore, was maintainable.

Constitutional petitions questioning therein the contents of a Memo. published in a newspaper "Financial Times" London written by respondent on stated allegations and according to the version of respondent, Memo. in question was prepared/drafted for the purpose of delivering the same to the Chairman of U.S. Joint Chief of Staff through former U.S. National Security Advisor

Held, when the question was for the truth under Art.19A of the Constitution, and nothing but the truth the court could not foresee the result of the probe which was ordered

Contention was that the court to adjust its opinion according to some anticipated consequences of such inquiry

Held further that Court being an objective enforcer of fundamental rights could not do that

Whether the petitioners or the respondents stood to benefit from the order of the Court or which institution or functionary of the State ends up being indicted by the Truth, Court was not called upon the say; in fact such was the very point of the inquiry; the only calculus Supreme Court was entitled to engage in was the calculus of true information and its availability to the citizens of Pakistan

Truth will indeed be critical if the nation is to achieve the goal

Constitution, in its preamble, had set for all organs of the State viz. the preservation of democracy achieved by the unremitting struggle of the people against opinion and tyranny

Supreme Court, therefore, could not deny to the citizens their guaranteed fundamental right under Art.19A by limiting or trivializing the scope of such right through an elitist construction whereby information remained the preserve of those who exercised State power.