The Punjab government's Right to Information (RTI) regime appears to be suffering from serious gaps in implementation, with annual reports submitted by district administrations revealing a strikingly uneven pattern of public access to official information, weak proactive disclosure and, in some districts, virtually no recorded use of the statutory mechanism. The reports submitted under Section 9 of the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2013, for the year ended June 30, 2026, show that while some administrations processed information requests and disclosed records to citizens, several others reported receiving no RTI applications at all.
More significantly, a number of offices acknowledged that information required to be proactively disclosed under Section 4 was either not available online or that the concerned office had no website. The figures available with Daily Jang from the reports show that the deputy commissioner's office, Lahore, received 89 RTI applications during the year, the highest number among the district offices covered by the reports. Information was provided in 74 cases, while three applications were regretted by the PIO.
The report, however, does not account in its response for the remaining 12 applications, raising questions about their status and disposal. The situation reported by Faisalabad is even more revealing. Its deputy commissioner's office received 10 RTI applications during the reporting year but recorded zero applications as having been allowed by providing information and zero as having been regretted.
The report does not indicate how the 10 requests were otherwise disposed of. The Faisalabad administration said its PIO had neither been summoned by the Punjab Information Commission nor appeared before it in connection with the 10 applications. It maintained that RTI laws were being implemented but complained that some applicants, including media persons, sought information it considered irrelevant or personal to officers and officials.
The reports from other districts paint a mixed picture. Rahim Yar Khan received three RTI applications and provided information in all three cases, with none rejected. It also reported that Section 4 information had been proactively disclosed through its official website.
Yet the administration identified a lack of public knowledge about the RTI law as a major impediment and called for repeated training for PIOs as well as awareness programmes for the general public. Sahiwal similarly received three applications and provided information in all three cases. However, the office reported that no official website of the deputy commissioner's office existed.
Gujrat reported no RTI applications during the year and, consequently, no applications either granted or rejected. Mandi Bahauddin also reported a complete absence of RTI applications during the year. Layyah reported the same pattern of zero applications, but its response went further by acknowledging concrete institutional barriers to implementation.
At the divisional level, the commissioner's office Bahawalpur reported three RTI applications, providing information in two cases and regretting one. The sharp differences between districts are particularly notable. Lahore recorded 89 applications, while Rahim Yar Khan and Sahiwal each recorded three, Faisalabad 10, and Gujrat, Mandi Bahauddin and Layyah none.
The figures may reflect differences in population, civil-society and media activity, public awareness and administrative practices, but the reports themselves do not provide enough evidence to establish why application rates vary so dramatically.