Through the instant writ petition the petitioner, Muhammad Adeel Akram, seeks the issuance of a writ of quo warranto qua the appointment of respondent No.4, Ijaz Hassan Awan, as a Member of the Information Commission under Section 18 of the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017 ("the 2017 Act").
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 18(3)(a) of the 2017 Act provides that the Information Commission shall comprise of three Commissioners to be appointed by the Prime Minister with one member from amongst the persons qualified to be a Judge of the High Court; and that respondent No.4 has recently retired as a District and Sessions Judge and is not qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the writ petition to be allowed in terms of the relief sought therein.
3. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record with his able assistance.
4. Article 193(2)(b) of the Constitution provides that a person shall not be appointed as a Judge of High Court unless he is a citizen of Pakistan, is not less than forty-five years of age and he is, and has for a period of not less than ten years been, a member of a civil service prescribed by law for the purposes of this paragraph, and has, for a period of not less than three years, served as or exercised the functions of a District Judge in Pakistan.
5. It is my view that a retired Judge of the subordinate judiciary, who has served for a period of not less than ten years and has served as a District Judge for not less than three years, is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court, and therefore can be appointed as an Information Commissioner provided he is less than sixty two years of age.
6. Whether or not respondent No.4 can continue serving as an Information Commissioner after attaining the age of sixty two (which is the retirement age for a Judge of the High Court prescribed in the Constitution) is not for this Court to determine at this stage. This question can be determined in the appropriate proceedings at the relevant stage.
7. In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed in lim ine.