Central Information Commission
N Thenmozhi vs Bar Council Of India on 30 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BCOIN/C/2022/646273
N Thenmozhi ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bar Council of India,
RTI Cell, 21, Rouse Avenue
Institutional Area,
New Delhi-110002. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24/03/2023 & 17/04/2023
Date of Interim Decision : 24/03/2023
Date of Final Decision : 26/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 12/06/2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/08/2022
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated seeking the following information:
"Background matter of this application:1
1. The BCI is a public entity. An applicant is entitled to get such information under Section 6 (1) of the RTI Act which can be accessed by the Public Authority under any other law for the time being in force.
2. I was the faculty of the Veltech Rangarajan Dr.Sagunthala R & D Institute of Science and Technology (Deemed to be University) with the qualification of B.Com., M.L. Later, I was also a full-time Ph.D. Scholar in the very same institute.
3. I have submitted a Complaint-Petition with Advocate Shri.Manan Kumar Mishra, Hon'ble Chairman of BCI. Bar Council of India, 21, Rouse Avenue Institution Area, Near Bal Bhavan, New Delhi 110002; vide my complaint-petition dated 01.06.2022 through the Registered Post number RT115443802IN booked on
02.06.2022 (The copy of the Complaint-Petition without its enclosure is enclosed; vide Appendix I to this RTI application). The Registered Post was delivered on 08.06.2022 as per the Track and Trace report of the Department of Posts' website (The screenshot of the Track-and-Trace copy is enclosed; vide Appendix I to this RTI application for a ready reference).
4. I would like to know certain information in respect of the Complaint-Petition filed by me which is the cherished fundamental rights of me under the Article 19(1)
(a) of the Constitution. I would like to bring to your kind attention that in the Bennette Coleman vs. Union of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (a) included the right to information.
This RTI Application:
This application is registered to provide the following information in a tabular columm as given-below by reproducing the points as they are. The authentic interpretation of the Act, the notes, High Court's Decisions and the Information Commission's decision mentioned/cited in this application are to be taken into account.
S. Points Reply & supply details
No in English only
1 Let me know the date on which my complaint-petition
dated 01.06.2022 was received at your end.
2 Let be supplied me with the certified copies of the note
sheet pages in connection with dealing with the
complaint-petition dated 01.06.2022.
2
3 Let be supplied me with the certified copies of the
correspondence/orders issued pages in connection with the dealing and disposal of the complaint-petition dated 01.06.2022.
4 Let me know the name of the Competent Authority which has taken/took action on my complaint-petition dated 01.06.2022 at the end of the office of the Hon'ble Chairman of the BCI.
5 Let me know the action taken of the Competent Authority which has taken/took action on my complaint-
petition dated 01.06.2022 at the end of the office of the Hon'ble Chairman of the BCI.
6 Whether the complaint-petition dated 01.06.2022 is forwarded to the institute against whom the complaint was made for seeking the "comments" etc. 7 Let me know the action taken by the institute in respect of the Complaint-Petition in continuation of receiving the petition from the Office of the Chairman of this BCI and the follow up action taken by the Office of the Chairman of this BCI for disposal of the complaint-petition.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of a reply from the CPIO, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 24.03.2023:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Ashok Pandey, Joint Secretary & FAA present through audio conference.
The Complainant stated that the CPIO provided a reply to the instant RTI Application only on 04.01.2023 and that too a reply which does not answer all the points raised by her. She urged for imposition of maximum penalty on the CPIO for the violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.
The FAA submitted that the Complainant's averred complaint petition was sent to the concerned institute but no communication has been received from them and the same was informed to the Complainant. Upon the Commission's query regarding the inordinate delay caused in providing the reply, the FAA bothered to 3 submit that the CPIO vide his written submissions dated 21.03.2023 has already placed before the bench the reasons for the unintentional delay stating as under:
"...it is to submit that reply was given beyond the statuary period as the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 29.9.2022 in Contempt Petition(C) No. 309/2022 in C.A. No. 7478/2019 titled as Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal Vs. Vasant D. Salunkhe directed the office of Bar Council of India to dispose of all the cases relating to Section 36B of the Advocates Act, 1961 upto 31.12.2022. There are approximately 2500 cases pending before the Bar Council of India and the hearings of the aforesaid complaints cases are being conducted by the Disciplinary Committee of BCI, having circuit Benches in the respective States. Since the maximum of staff member including the CPIO (Shri Awanish Kumar Pandey) were engaged in the work of the Disciplinary Committee department and accordingly there is a delay in replying to the queries raised by the applicant under RTI."
The FAA further assured that as on date the BCI is disposing off all the RTI Application within the stipulated time-frame and there is no backlog.
Interim Decision on 24.03.2023 The Commission based on the submissions of the CPIO & FAA is gravely irked to note that the Supreme Court directives referred to in their justification for the delay (in replying to the instant RTI Application) is itself that of 29.09.2022, i.e almost 3 months after the instant RTI Application was filed. In other words, there is no explanation for the said 3 months of omission by the then CPIO i.e from 16.06.2022 (receipt date of RTI Application gathered from the online portal) till 29.09.2022 and astonishingly, Deepak Kumar, Sr. Office Superintendent & CPIO has unabashedly deemed the grounds of the complaint as "not correct" without heeding to the basic fact that their reply of 04.01.2023 was issued long after the instant Complaint was filed on 25.08.2022. The Commission severely reprimands Deepak Kumar, Sr. Office Superintendent & CPIO for tendering unwarranted and factually ignorant comments against the Complainant's cause in his written submissions.
It is also pertinent to note that neither the CPIO nor the FAA have appreciated the fact that the instant matter is a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act for "no reply" within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act as the CPIO has referred to the case as a Second Appeal in his submissions while the FAA during the hearing harped on the merits of the information provided to the Complainant.
4The mindless approach of the Respondent office in the matter is far from acceptable and since there is nothing on record to justify the delay of the three months that preceded the exigencies touted to be caused by the averred Supreme Court directive, the Commission directs the Awanish Kumar Pandey, then CPIO through the FAA to be present before the bench in person on 17.04.2023 at 01.30 pm to show-cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for not adhering to the time stipulations contained in the RTI Act. Awanish Kumar Pandey, then CPIO is further directed to send proper written submissions to the bench along with supporting documents, if any, atleast 48 hours prior to the hearing.
Deepak Kumar, Sr. Office Superintendent & CPIO through the FAA is also directed to appear before the bench on the aforesaid date and time to show- cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for putting forth misleading and factually incorrect submissions before the Commission thus causing obstruction to the Complainant's right to information.
The Complaint was reserved for final order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Respondent: Awanish Kumar Pandey, then CPIO; Deepak Kumar, Sr. Office Superintendent & CPIO along with J R Sharma, AS present through intra-video conference.
Awanish Kumar Pandey, then CPIO invited the attention of the bench to his written statement filed on 11.04.2023 stating as under:
"1: At the outset, I would like to submit that the subject matter of the Online RTI of Ms. N. Thenmozhi is relating to the legal education department , the CPIO of Legal Education Department was/is Mr. Deepak Bhat at the time of providing the online information and I am the CPIO of Council Department . Providing the information is the responsibility of the CPIO of Legal Education Department.
2: I would like to submit that inadvertently online RTI application was forwarded to the CPIO of Council Department by the Nodal Officer, Mr. Deepak Bhat, who is also a CPIO of Legal Education Department.5
The online reply of the Council Department is to be given by Mr. Deepak Bhat in consultation with CPIO, Council Department , if required.
However this was a RTI query related to legal education department thus the reply of RTI which was the subject matter of the legal Education Department was given by Mr. Deepak Bhat himself without knowledge of CPIO of Council Department as that was his domain and he was not required to consult or intimate CPIO of council dept for a RTI reply related to legal education dept reply.
3: I would submit that the fact of the matter is that the delay has happened to provide the information without any intention by the CPIO of Legal Education Department , still I apologize and assure Hon'ble CIC to comply the provision of RTI in letter and spirit .
4: It is to submit that in the past, Bar Council of India has always represented its stand in various cases filed in the Central Information Commission. In future also, I assure you that I will be extra cautious while dealing/appearing before the CIC. furthermore we shall forthwith also try and reply to the RTI query."
Deepak Kumar, Sr. Office Superintendent & CPIO also submitted on the lines of his written statement dated 15.04.2023 stating as under:
"An RTI application dated 14.6.2022 was received by the Nodal Officer-RTI, BCI and the same was forwarded to the CPIO, Council Department (Mr. Awanish Kumar Pandey) on 16.6.2022. The RTI applicant was seeking information pertains to her complaint petition dated 1.6.2022 for non-payment of full salary and allowances to the faculties by M/s Veltech (deemed) to be the University) Avadi, Chennai and the said petition was addressed to the Chairman of Bar Council of India.
In the office of Bar Council of India whatever letter/representation (daak) comes in the name of Chairman, Bar Council of India, all such dak goes to the Head of the Department of Council Department for action taken. As Mr. Awanish Kumar Pandey is the HoD and CPIO of Council Department, the aforesaid RTI was also forwarded to the CPIO, Council Department as the matter was related to the complaint/representation addressed to the Chairman, BCI. The CPIO, Council Department furnished the reply on 4.1.2023.
Hon'ble CIC has sent three notices in the matter of N. Thenmozhi Vs CPIO, out of three notices two were related to CPIO, Legal Education and one is (i.e. the 6 present) related to CPIO, Council Department. The Receipt Section of BCI marked the said notices to the Legal Education department.
Although the written submission in the present matter was supposed to be submitted by the CPIO, Council Department (Mr. Awanish Kumar Pandey), but he was absent on 21.3.2023 and accordingly, the undersigned has submitted the written submissions in the aforesaid matter.
It is correct that due to inadvertent (in the process of copying and pasting) the reasons for delay in replying RTI was wrongly mentioned in the written submissions (although the reasons for delay was not mentioned in the reply dated 4.1.2023 of the CPIO), for that the undersigned is seeking sincere apology with an assurance that the undersigned will be more cautious in future while dealing with the RTI matters.
It is humbly submitted that there is a delay of providing information to the complainant herein but the delay was occurred without any mala-fide intention. It is happened unintentionally without any ill motive. One of the reason of delay of providing information is miscommunication between the departments. Although the concerned department has taken action on her representation dated 1.6.2022 by sending the same to the concerned Centre of Legal Education vide letter dated 19.7.2022. The information sought by the applicant although was not related to this office as the complainant herein sought action taken on the complaint addressed to the Hon'ble Chairman, BCI and the complaint dated 1.6.2022 sent by her was forwarded to Principal, Vel Tech Rengarajan Dr. Sagunthala R& ED for their explanation/comments on 19.7.2022. I also undertake if the complainant wants to inspect the file of the concerned Centre of Legal Education, she may do so with the mutual agreement for fixing the date and time of the inspection and the undersigned will fully cooperate in providing the necessary compliance of the Hon'ble CIC and fully comply the provisions of the RTI Act.
In view of the aforementioned, your goodself is requested to consider the matter sympathically as the mistake occurred was bona-fide and not intentional and the inconvenience caused to Hon'ble CIC and applicant is highly regretted."
In furtherance of these written submissions, the CPIOs urged and admitted that the omissions noted in the matter were a result of sheer miscommunication between them and not meant to obstruct or withhold any information from the Complainant. The CPIOs further enlightened the bench regarding the merits of 7 the Complainant's grievance and about the steps taken from their end to facilitate the said grievance of the Complainant, at which point, the Commission advised them that the merits of the grievance redressal process is not under determination here.
FINAL DECISION Having considered the submissions of the CPIOs, the Commission finds this level of miscommunication amongst them to be exasperating to say the least, however, being constrained by the lack of any malafides evinced from their misconduct, the show-cause proceedings are hereby dropped. Here, the Commission relies a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Similarly, an observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Bhagat Singh vs. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 is also relevant to point out here which reads as under:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two-year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a 8 direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Notwithstanding the lack of malafides, Awanish Kumar Pandey, then CPIO; Deepak Kumar, Sr. Office Superintendent & CPIO shall deem this as a last warning to ensure against committing or causing any similar lapse emanating from the so-called miscommunications in the future with respect to the matters under RTI Act.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 9