The Islamabad High Court has upheld a Pakistan Information Commission determination that the Pakistan Microfinance Investment Company Limited is a public body under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017. The PIC had issued an order on January 16, 2025, after an earlier direction on September 10, 2024, to furnish information which PMIC did not comply with, prompting the company to challenge the decision before the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
PMIC argued it is a private sector company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2017 and regulated by the SECP, asserting it is neither owned nor controlled by the federal government. The company pointed to its shareholding structure, noting Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund holds 49 percent while Karandaaz Pakistan and KfW hold 37.8 percent and 13.2 percent respectively, and maintained it does not receive public funding nor perform sovereign functions. PMIC also described the requested records as commercially sensitive, especially information surrounding the appointment and reappointment of Mr. Yasir Ashfaq as chief executive.
Counsel for the respondent countered that the Right of Access to Information Act is a beneficial law meant to promote transparency and that Section 2(ix) defines a “public body” broadly to include entities owned, controlled, or substantially funded by public bodies. The respondent emphasised that PMIC’s shareholders are government-backed entities and that substantial public funding and public purpose activities bring PMIC within the scope of the Act.
The court, presided over by Justice Muhammad Asif, examined the legislative intent to give effect to the constitutional right of access to information under Article 19A and observed that ownership, controlling interest or substantial funding independently suffice under Section 2(ix) to classify an entity as a public body. The bench noted that PMIC’s shareholding vests entirely in PPAF, Karandaaz and KfW and recorded that more than 70 percent of PMIC’s funding originates from public bodies and public funds. The requested information on Mr. Yasir Ashfaq’s appointment was viewed as directly linked to governance and stewardship of public resources.
The court also observed PMIC’s origins within the National Financial Inclusion Strategy launched under the Ministry of Finance and its objectives tied to financial inclusion and poverty alleviation. Finding no jurisdictional defect, mala fide or perversity in the PIC’s order, the High Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 3638 of 2024 and held that the Commission had acted within lawful authority. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
The judgment reinforces the reach of the RTI Act where public ownership, control or substantial funding exists, and underlines the judiciary’s role in upholding transparency obligations for entities engaged in public-purpose finance and development activities.
