Central Information Commission
Chandra Shekhar Kandpal vs Bar Council Of India on 9 June, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BCOIN/A/2022/111460
Chandra Shekhar Kandpal ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bar Council of India,
RTI Cell, 21 Rouse Avenue
Institutional Area, New Delhi - 110002. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/05/2022
Date of Decision : 25/05/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31/05/2021
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 07/07/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07/03/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2021 seeking the following information:
(A) "Deed of BCI Trust --PEARL- FIRST registered on 26.09.2020 as well as ; (B) Council resolution bearing Item Number 474/2020 dated 16.09.2020 by which inter alia the Bar Council Of India Trust ( old) is now extinguished & revoked and ;1
(C) Any document evidencing that Bar Council of India Trust (old) has to be treated as Non-existent by Bar Council of India in all respect as is communicated vide your mail dated 02.01.2021 addressed to the employees of Bar Council of India Trust (extinguished)."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.07.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Ashok Kumar Pandey, FAA along with Awanish Kumar Pandey, Assistant Secretary & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the deemed refusal of the CPIO to provide the information to him as he has not received any reply to the instant RTI Application till date. He further stated that he was superannuated on 31.08.2021 and for his retirement dues which includes (Salary, Gratuity, as well as pension with other consequential benefits) he has preferred a writ petition against the BCI Trust & Ors. before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide W. P.(C) 11952/2021 but the respondents therein have not filed their replies which is fixed for hearing on 04.08.2022, while by its order dated 15.02.2022 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had ordered the release of partial dues, which has been released by Bar Council of India Trust. He lastly stated that he requires the documents sought for in the RTI Application to aid his case in the Court.
The FAA invited the attention of the bench to the written submissions filed by the CPIO before the hearing, contents of which is reproduced hereunder:
"In response to the first request made by the appellant/complainant that he should be provided the Deed of Bar Council of India Trust-PEARL FIRST registered on 26.09.2020, it is submitted, firstly, that this request has been made by the appellant/ complainant to the Bar Council of India and not to the Bar Council of India Trust-PEARL FIRST; and secondly, it is also submitted that while the Bar Council of India is a public authority, the Bar Council of India Trust-PEARL FIRST is not a public authority and therefore, the Bar Council of India Trust-PEARL FIRST 2 doesn't fall under the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Since the information sought was not related to BCI, so it was not replied and in the absence of BCI Trust being the public authority, it was referred under Sec 6 of the RTI Act. Apart from the above fact, the Bar council of India does not have a copy of the above referred document as the said document is available with the Bar Council of India Trust-PEARL FIRST, which of a public authority.....
...It is submitted that as per the Resolution dated 16.09.2020, in the presence of Bar Council of India Members and all the Trustees as well as Managing Trustees and Associate Managing Trustees of the Bar Council of India Trust, it was resolved by way of Resolution dated 21.08.2021 that since the decision/resolution relates to a non-public authority, the relevant extract of the resolution concerning employees of the extinguished Trust had been duly informed/ communicated on 02.01.2021 to the employees of the extinguished Trust, and thus, the entire resolution, which relates to a non-public authority i.e. Bar Council of India Trust (extinguished) does not fall within the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and is not required to be submitted.
It is further submitted that Mr. C. S. Kandpal was an employee of Bar Council of India Trust, which was extinguished and for settlement of his dues with erstwhile Bar Council of India Trust, Mr. Kandpal has filed W. P. (C) No.11952/2021, wherein he has made certain prayers relating to issues arising out of the extinguishment of the Trust. The matter is coming up for hearing before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 04.08.2022. Moreover, Mr. Kandpal's queries have no relationship to any public activity or interest and the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the Trust. Mr. Kandpal has made such application under Right to Information Act, 2005 with mala-fide intention and the application is misconceived and as stated above not maintainable under the RTI Act, as the Trust is not a public authority. Such a request would also involve an infringement of copyright of the Trust, which is not at all a state.
It may be further mentioned that like any other charitable Trust BCI Trust is not a public authority does not receive a single farthing/enjoy any Government Financing. It is a simple charitable Trust (pure and simple) and thus cannot be said to be a public authority. It is neither owned nor controlled by any State Govt., Central Govt. or even by Bar Council of India. It has no concern with BCI even. It is a separate a civil entity."
In furtherance of the said submissions, upon a query from the bench regarding any control that the BCI may exercise over the said Trust, the FAA vehemently emphasised that the BCI has no control over the BCI Trust. Further, on the aspect 3 of the deemed refusal of the CPIO evinced in the matter, the FAA submitted that since the BCI was confused about their role in the matter considering that the BCI Trust in not a public entity thereby having no facility of transferring the RTI Application even, no action could be taken on the instant RTI Application but insisted that there was no deliberate or malafide intent in not having replied to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset takes grave exception to the failure of the CPIO in not having provided any reply to the instant RTI Application till date as it amounts to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information. Further, the Commission is baffled at the averments of the FAA suggesting that the BCI was clueless about the action that is required at their end on the mere pretext that the BCI Trust is not a public authority as it suggests an extremely naïve argument for a statutory authority that is ordained with the task of setting standards for legal education and regulating the profession of legal practice in the country. The CPIO was statutorily duty bound to reply to the RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act either by providing the information or denying the information as per Section 8 and/or 9 of the Act or at the least indicating the unavailability of the information with the BCI.
Similarly, it is pertinent to note in the instant case that the aspect of BCI trust being a public authority or not under the RTI Act is not for determination as the RTI Application has been filed directly with the BCI, which is a public authority and not the BCI Trust. Here, it is relevant to bring out the provisions of Section 2(j) and 2(f) of the RTI Act which clearly stipulates that:
Section 2(j)- "...."right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to--..........."
Section 2(f)- "...."information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force..." Upon a conjoint reading of the two Sections, it becomes essentially clear that the RTI Application of the Appellant has to be construed in the spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Act. It is reiterated therefore that the Appellant 4 has sought for the information from a public authority and not from the averred Trust, therefore the reason tendered by the FAA for the deemed refusal of the CPIO to reply to the RTI Application even is completely untenable.
Furthermore, the argument of the CPIO & FAA that the information sought for by the Appellant have no public interest or is an infringement on privacy rights and copyrights of the Trust are extraneous and misplaced considerations. Yet, as a matter of fact, it may be noted that the disclosure of the information concerns the public interest of the community of the employees of the Trust.
Having observed as above, the Commission now directs the CPIO to access the available information from the BCI Trust under any other law for the time being in force and provide it directly to the Appellant, free of cost. In the event that, the BCI reinforces their stand that they do not have any control over the BCI Trust and cannot access the available records of BCI Trust as sought for in the instant RTI Application, the CPIO shall file an appropriate affidavit to this effect and send it to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant.
The above directions shall be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5