RTI Against PMIC: FCC Sets Aside Disclosure Order but Upholds Two-Member PIC Quorum

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

Two-member quorum upheld, but PMIC's disclosure order set aside

The Federal Constitutional Court has set aside the Pakistan Information Commission's disclosure order against Pakistan Microfinance Investment Company Limited and the Islamabad High Court judgment maintaining it. The Court rejected the public-body and requested-record reasoning used to sustain disclosure. It nevertheless upheld the legality of a meeting attended by two Commissioners under Rule 9 of the Right of Access to Information Rules, 2020. Order, paragraphs 5–7.

Those are separate holdings. PMIC succeeded against the disclosure order; it did not succeed in establishing that every Commission decision needs all three Commissioners in attendance. The ruling does not invalidate all two-member decisions or exempt every company incorporated under the Companies Act from RTI.

The order in M/s. Pakistan Microfinance Investment Company Limited v. Pakistan Information Commission and another, F.C.P.L.A. No. 694 of 2026, is dated 8 July 2026. Justice Aamer Farooq authored it on a bench with Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi. The official FCC register records upload on 14 October 2026. The supplied PDF is marked approved for reporting, though the register's reported-status column displays a dash for this order. No reporter citation is printed.

The request and the litigation

The requester was a former PMIC employee who served from December 2016 until August 2023. On 24 May 2024 he requested records described in the order as relating to payment and repayment of PMIC's Chief Executive Officer. He appealed by email to the Commission on 29 May 2024 after failing to obtain the requested access. Order, paragraph 1.

PMIC opposed the appeal on maintainability and on whether the documents fell within the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017. On 10 September 2024, the Commission allowed the appeal and required information within ten days. PMIC challenged that order in W.P. No. 3638 of 2024. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the writ on 28 January 2026, leading to the FCC proceedings. Order, paragraph 1.

The chronology records what happened in this appeal. It is not a separate holding that a five-day gap between an initial request and an appeal invariably satisfies every statutory timing requirement. The Court addressed the grounds discussed in its order, rather than announcing a universal rule about how soon all applicants may appeal.

The three issues raised by PMIC

PMIC challenged the composition or quorum of the Commission, its own classification as a public body under section 2(ix), and the requested records' coverage under the Act. These questions must be kept distinct: a lawfully constituted decision-making body can still make an erroneous decision about its jurisdiction or the records sought. Order, paragraphs 2 and 5–6.

The former employee argued that PMIC undertook public functions within section 2(ix)(g) and that the records formed part of policy and guidelines. The FCC did not accept that position on the reasoning and record presented. Order, paragraphs 3 and 6.

Composition is different from attendance at a meeting

Section 18(3) provides for three Commissioners with specified backgrounds: a person qualified to be a High Court judge, a person who served Pakistan in BS-22 or equivalent, and a civil-society member meeting the education and experience requirements. PMIC argued that, absent a quorum provision in the Act itself, two Commissioners could not decide the appeal. Order, paragraphs 2 and 5.

The FCC noted the submission that all three positions were occupied when the Commission decided the matter. It then considered Rule 9, which prescribes a two-Commissioner quorum and addresses disagreement and chairing of meetings. The Court found no requirement in the Act that all three must attend every meeting, and no excess of the Rules over the Act on that issue. Order, paragraph 5.

The distinction is practical. Statutory composition concerns the offices forming the Commission. Meeting quorum concerns the number needed to conduct its business. The FCC rejected the argument that three offices necessarily mean three-person attendance for every decision.

The holding should be cited with its setting. The Court recorded that no position was vacant at the relevant time. It did not decide every possible vacancy dispute or every possible defect in appointment. Nor does the quorum ruling excuse a failure to give legally adequate reasons on the merits.

Why the public-body reasoning failed

The FCC criticised the Commission for treating PMIC's public-body status cursorily and without adequate reasons. It also rejected the High Court's reasoning based on an assumption concerning a forty-nine per cent shareholding or contribution attributed in the order to the “Poverty Elevation Board”. Order, paragraph 6.

The judgment uses that description; the article does not silently substitute a different institution or independently certify the ownership assertion. What mattered was that the Court did not accept the reasoning as a sufficient legal foundation for bringing PMIC within section 2(ix).

The former employee's public-functions assertion was likewise rejected as lacking substance. The FCC stated that PMIC, incorporated under the Companies Act, 2017 and regulated by SECP, did not fall squarely within section 2(ix) on the case before it. Order, paragraph 6.

It would overstate the order to treat incorporation as a universal RTI exemption. The inquiry remains whether the particular entity satisfies a category in the statutory definition. The ruling concerns PMIC, the asserted grounds and the reasoning actually examined, rather than every regulated company or every body receiving institutional funding.

Requested records were a further obstacle

The Court also held that the requested CEO payment and repayment documents did not fall within section 6 on the arguments and record before it. That provided another reason why the Commission's order and the High Court's judgment could not stand. Order, paragraph 6.

This is not a declaration that every record touching a CEO is private. The classification of the body and the statutory treatment of the particular record are separate inquiries. A future request must identify the relevant statutory basis and describe the documents accurately, rather than assume that an office-holder's seniority either guarantees disclosure or prohibits it.

The supplied order does not independently decide every possible exemption, severability issue or alternative category of record. Its actual reasons should remain the focus of any citation.

This was an allowed appeal, not a remand

The former employee's counsel suggested remitting the matter if the issues had not been adequately addressed. The Court's operative order did not adopt that course. It converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it and set aside both the IHC judgment of 28 January 2026 and the Commission order of 10 September 2024. Order, paragraphs 3 and 7.

Describing the result merely as a direction to give better reasons would therefore be wrong. The disclosure order in this case was set aside. At the same time, the Court's rejection of the quorum challenge remains part of the legal reasoning and cannot be omitted simply because PMIC won the appeal.

Practical points for RTI applicants and respondents

The following are implications of the issues in the order, rather than new procedural conditions imposed by the FCC:

• Identify the precise limb of section 2(ix) relied upon, and the evidence showing the entity falls within it.
• Distinguish ownership, control, financing and performance of public functions instead of treating them as interchangeable assertions.
• Connect the requested records to the applicable statutory category and address any claimed exclusion or exemption separately.
• Distinguish a challenge to Commissioners' appointment or composition from a challenge to meeting quorum.
• Examine whether the Commission and reviewing court answered the material jurisdictional objections with reasons.
• Read the operative order to determine whether disclosure survived, was set aside or was remitted.

For a public-body objection, a conclusory statement that the entity serves the public is not a substitute for establishing the statutory criteria. For a quorum objection, this ruling makes clear that two-member attendance under Rule 9 is not invalid merely because section 18 provides three offices. Order, paragraphs 5–6.

For connected discussion, see our constitutional-law articles and judgment library. The present article states the result of the FCC appeal rather than repeating the earlier IHC outcome as current law in this case.

Frequently asked questions

Did the FCC invalidate the two-Commissioner quorum?

No. It found no legal or jurisdictional infirmity on that ground and upheld Rule 9's two-member quorum in the setting examined. Order, paragraph 5.

Did the Commission's disclosure order survive?

No. Both the Commission's order and the High Court judgment were set aside. Order, paragraph 7.

Are all Companies Act companies outside the RTI Act?

The Court did not lay down that universal proposition. The decision concerns PMIC's status on the grounds and record discussed under section 2(ix). Order, paragraph 6.

Sources and textual details

The primary source is the complete supplied six-page order. Its heading identifies the Act as the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017. Paragraph 2 later contains a reference to a “1997 Act”, and paragraph 5 describes rule-making through “Rule 26 of the Rules”. The article preserves the case's controlling identification and does not construct a new legislative citation from those wording inconsistencies.

• Read the complete supplied order.
• Download the order PDF.
• Official FCC PDF.
• Official FCC judgment and order register.
• Searchable judgment summary and full metadata.

The order date is 8 July 2026; upload date is 14 October 2026. The approval-for-reporting endorsement in the PDF and the register's dash are separately recorded rather than treated as identical reporting information.