The Supreme Court has ruled that the State must explicitly state its reasons for refusing to disclose information requested under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This decision follows a legal dispute involving RTI activist Ahmed Afrah Ismail, who sought information in 2022 regarding the construction of Ameenee Magu. The Housing Ministry initially failed to respond to the RTI request within the specified timeframe, prompting Afrah to raise the matter with the Information Commissioner’s Office (iCOM), which ordered the ministry to provide the requested details. The ministry subsequently appealed this decision to the High Court, which upheld iCOM’s ruling in favor of Afrah. However, the State escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.
A central issue in the case was the Housing Ministry’s introduction of new reasons for withholding the information during the High Court proceedings, reasons that were not presented earlier at iCOM. Supreme Court Judge Aisha Shujune criticized this inconsistency, comparing it to casting a fishing line at random. She emphasized that reasons for withholding information must be declared at the initial stage, with additional supporting details allowed in higher hearings, but new arguments cannot be introduced. Judge Shujune also noted that inconsistent reasoning at different stages undermines the integrity of the RTI process.
The Supreme Court also clarified confusion about whether Afrah’s submission to iCOM was an appeal or a complaint. Under the RTI Act, appeals arise when applicants are dissatisfied with a Review Committee’s decision, while complaints are filed when information is not disclosed within the legal timeframe. Since the Housing Ministry missed both the original and extended deadlines, the case was classified as a complaint. The court emphasized that even partial disclosure after a deadline should be considered non-compliance to protect the constitutional right to information.
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the High Court’s order requiring the Housing Ministry to disclose all requested information regarding Ameenee Magu’s construction. Two out of three judges on the bench supported this decision, with Judge Mahaaz Ali Zahir dissenting, arguing that the Supreme Court should not hear iCOM-related cases beyond the High Court. However, Judges Aisha Shujune and Dr. Azmiralda Zahir maintained that the case was within the Supreme Court’s purview. The ruling underscores the importance of transparency and accountability, affirming the principles of the RTI Act.