The Islamabad High Court has upheld an order of the Pakistan Information Commission declaring PMIC a public body subject to the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, reinforcing access to records held by entities with public backing. The PIC had determined on January 16, 2025 that the Pakistan Microfinance Investment Company Limited falls within the Act’s definition of a public body after a citizen’s appeal, and the court confirmed that finding.
PMIC had challenged the Commission’s earlier direction of September 10, 2024 to disclose certain information, filing Writ Petition No. 3638 of 2024 under Article 199. The company argued before Justice Muhammad Asif that it is a private entity incorporated under the Companies Act, 2017, licensed and regulated by the SECP, not owned or controlled by the federal government, and therefore outside the scope of the RTI law. It further maintained that Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund holds only 49 percent and that majority shareholding rests with Karandaaz Pakistan and KfW, adding that the requested records were commercially sensitive.
Counsel opposing the petition told the court that the Right of Access to Information Act is a beneficial statute intended to promote transparency and accountability. The respondent emphasized that Section 2(ix) defines “public body” broadly to include entities owned, controlled, or substantially funded by public bodies or performing public functions, and argued that PMIC’s ownership structure and funding brought it within the Act.
The court examined the legislative purpose of the Act and Article 19A of the Constitution, noting that ownership, controlling interest, or substantial public funding can independently bring an entity under the law. The judgment records that PMIC’s shareholding fully vests in PPAF, Karandaaz Pakistan and KfW, and that more than 70 percent of PMIC’s funding originates from public bodies or public funds.
The information sought concerned the appointment and reappointment of Mr. Yasir Ashfaq as Chief Executive, a governance matter the court described as directly tied to stewardship of financial resources. The bench also noted PMIC’s origins under the National Financial Inclusion Strategy launched by the Ministry of Finance and its role in pursuing financial inclusion and poverty alleviation objectives.
Finding no jurisdictional defect, mala fides, or perversity in the Commission’s order, the court dismissed the writ petition and held that the PIC acted within its lawful authority. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. The decision underscores the judiciary’s willingness to apply the Right of Access to Information Act to entities with significant public ownership or funding in line with transparency goals.
