PIPS Recruitment Records Declared ‘Classified’ After RTI Request

ISLAMABAD: Official documents obtained by The Reporters reveal that the Pakistan Information Commission (PIC) has upheld a decision allowing the Pakistan Institute for Parliamentary Services (PIPS) to withhold records relating to the recruitment of an Assistant Director (Research), after the institution declared the information “classified” under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017.

The case arose after an applicant sought access to records concerning the recruitment process, including the advertisement, shortlisting criteria, evaluation process, merit assessment and selection record. However, PIPS refused to provide the information, arguing that the requested documents had already been classified through an order issued by the Chairman Senate, who also serves as Chairman of the PIPS Board of Governors.

Documents available with The Reporters show that on March 2, 2026, Chairman Senate Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani approved an order declaring several categories of PIPS records as classified under Section 7(f) of the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017.

According to the order, the classification covers governance records, internal policy deliberations, parliamentary research material, strategic and operational planning, procurement records, administrative management documents and personnel matters, including recruitment, promotions, disciplinary proceedings and performance evaluations.

The order argues that disclosure of such information could adversely affect the institution’s autonomy, legislative privilege, deliberative confidentiality, administrative integrity and effective functioning. It further states that any public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the potential institutional harm.

The applicant challenged the refusal before the Pakistan Information Commission, arguing that the RTI Act specifically authorises only the “Minister-in-Charge of the Federal Government” to classify records under Section 7(f). The appellant contended that the law does not confer such authority upon the Chairman Senate and that recruitment records of a publicly funded institution should remain accessible in the interest of transparency and accountability.

However, official documents reviewed by The Reporters show that the Pakistan Information Commission rejected the appeal in its decision dated July 8, 2026.

The Commission held that because the Senate Secretariat has no Minister-in-Charge, the Chairman Senate is the competent authority to exercise the powers contemplated under Section 7(f) of the RTI Act for institutions functioning under the parliamentary framework, including PIPS.

The Commission also found that the written classification order contained sufficient reasons explaining why disclosure could impair institutional autonomy and therefore satisfied the statutory requirement of recording reasons before declaring records classified.

The appellant had further argued that blanket classification of recruitment records undermines transparency in public appointments and limits citizens’ ability to examine whether merit and due process were followed. The Commission, however, concluded that the matter did not involve established allegations of corruption or human rights violations and therefore the statutory exceptions requiring disclosure were not attracted.

The decision is likely to generate wider legal debate among transparency advocates and RTI practitioners because it interprets the phrase “Minister-in-Charge” in Section 7(f) to include the Chairman Senate in the context of parliamentary institutions. Legal experts say the interpretation could influence future requests for information concerning Parliament and its affiliated bodies.

The case also raises broader questions about the balance between institutional confidentiality and the public’s constitutional right to access information, particularly where recruitment processes in publicly funded institutions are concerned.

While the Pakistan Information Commission has upheld the classification in this case, transparency advocates argue that recruitment records generally serve an important public accountability function and that future judicial interpretation may further clarify the scope of the classification powers under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017.