Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vidya V Gaikwad vs Bar Council Of India on 22 January, 2026

                                     के ीय सूचना आयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                                 बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2024/128537


Vidya V Gaikwad                                                         ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                              VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Bar Council of Delhi                                              ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Date of Hearing                  :       05.01.2026
Date of Decision                 :       20.01.2026

 Chief Information Commissioner : Raj Kumar Goyal

Relevant dates:
 RTI application filed on         :          15.05.2024
 PIO replied on                   :          24.05.2024
 First Appeal filed on            :          03.06.2024
 First Appellate Order on         :          13.06.2024
 2ndAppeal/complaint              :          30.08.2024
 received on

 Information sought

and background of the case:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.05.2024 before the PIO, BCD, seeking the following information:

"A) Certified copy of the Application form submitted for enrollment with Delhi Bar Council, by Adv Vatsla Vishakha Prabhudasi having, Registration/enrollment as:- D/2459/2016. B) Current Application for Verification of Sanad (Certificate of practice) D-2459-2016"

[reproduced verbatim]

2. The CPIO, BCD vide reply dated 24.05.2024 informed as under:

"It is informed that as per records maintained by Bar Council of Delhi Ms. Vatsla Vishakha Prabhudasi was enrolled as an Advocate vide enrolment No. D/2459/2016 Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2024/128537 Page 1 of 6 Other informations/details sought by you in application under reference, cannot be provided as the same is duly exempted under the Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act-2005, as it is a third party information and your application has not disclosed any larger public interest."

Reproduced verbatim

3. Not satisfied with the PIO's reply, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.06.2024 before the FAA challenging the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by the PIO to deny the information. She contended inter alia that the function of Advocate is in the nature of "Officer of the court ", which is a public function and therefore, the information has been sought in the interest of public. Hence the appellant contended that the information sought under this Act is not a personal information because details sought are details which are provided by the Advocate to the Bar council of Delhi, a public authority, who issues Sanad/License to practice in courts.

4. The FAA/Secretary, BCI passed an order dated 13.06.2024 upholding the PIO's reply.

5. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in course of Hearing:

6. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: Mr. T Singhdev - Advocate, Bar Council of India was present.

7. The Appellant has filed the written submission dated 27.12.2025 stating that since no reply has so far been filed by the respondent opposing the 2nd appeal, the 2nd appeal may be considered as unopposed by the Bar council of Delhi. She has cited two decisions: (a.) Sh. Pawan Kumar Kaushik VS CPIO Bar Council of Delhi - Appeal no CIC/SA/A/2016/001298 decided on 10.07.2017 and 11.10.2017 By Hon'ble CIC Radha Mathur and (b). Shri Sumatilal Kataria VS PIO State Bar Council, Madhya Pradesh High Court Campus, Jabalpur [Appeal No CIC/BCOIN/C/2019/128724 and CIC/BCOIN/C/2019/885] Decided on 21.06.2021 By Hon'ble CIC Shri Y.K. Sinha.

8. The Appellant has filed a rejoinder dated 02.01.2026 contending, inter alia, that each and every information with the public authority cannot be considered to be held in fiduciary relationship. She further stated that an advocate while getting enrolled with the Bar Council furnishes the details in respect of eligibility to obtain the license to practice in Courts. She mentioned that a vakalatnama filed in the name of the third party, i.e. Advocate V V Prabhudesai bears suspicious signature due to variation and address details and hence the Appellant seeks to check authenticity of the original documents submitted before the Bar Council.

9. Another written submission dated 31.12.2025 has been received from the PIO, BCD reiterating the above facts and establishing that the information which has been denied to the appellant is on account of the fact that the said information is personal in nature and belongs to the third party, a female lawyer in this case. The Appellant has failed to establish as to how disclosure of the information would serve any larger public interest. On the other hand, on numerous occasions, through a catena of judgements, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have upheld that privacy of an individual cannot be jeopardised or compromised unless there is adequate cause and that personal information relating to any individual held by public authority is barred from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The Respondent has added that the application form submitted for enrolment by advocates contain the details of their educational qualification, with supporting documents, identity proof, caste proof, address, contact details etc., which fall within the category of personal information and cannot be disclosed freely in public domain without invading privacy of the individual in question.

Decision

10. Upon perusal of records of the case, it is noted that the PIO, BCI had responded to the Appellant in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, both at the stage of the PIO's reply and as the FAA's order.

11. The Commission finds it important that the decisions cited by the Appellant need to be analysed to find out whether they are applicable to the facts of the instant case. The first case cited by the Appellant is (a) CIC/SA/A/2016/001298 decided on 10.07.2017 Sh. Pawan Kumar Kaushik vs. CPIO, BCI. The appellant in the said case sought information pertaining to "whether a person can practice in Court after passing LLB examination through correspondence course; if yes, names of Institutes/Universities from where such LLB can be pursued; whether Sh. Axxdh xxxxri xxxxik is registered as an Advocate in Bar Council. While deciding the case, the Commission had allowed disclosure of information only to the extent to disclose to name of college from where the lawyer in question had passed his LLB. In the second case cited by the Appellant, viz. (b) Shri Sumatilal Kataria vs PIO State Bar Council, Madhya Pradesh High Court Campus, Jabalpur [Appeal No CIC/BCOIN/C/2019/128724 and CIC/BCOIN/C/2019/885] decided on 21.06.2021, the complainant had sought number of complaints received against practising advocates since 2017, names of advocates who violated provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, copy of inward Dak registers showing intake of complaints etc. However, no direction for disclosure of information had been passed in both the cases which were complaints filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. The queries raised in the aforementioned cases and the decisions of the Commission in both instances are completely different and distinguishable from the facts of the instant case, hence facts and decision of neither of the cases could be applicable in this case.

12. Dealing with the substantive question of whether the information sought by the Appellant should be furnished to her, even if the information falls within the category of personal information, merely because the individual in question is an "officer of the court- which is public function/duty and in the interest of public lacks logic and legality. In fact if one is guided by that logic, all the personal information of every individual - public servants, medical practitioners, or whoever renders any service in the interest of public should be made public. Protection of personal data will be rendered infructuous if the appellant's reasoning were to be accepted. The Commission finds it pertinent at this point to mention the observation and legal precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2024/128537 Page 4 of 6 Court in its decision dated 13.11.2019 in the Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 in the case of CPIO, Supreme Court vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal:

"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.."

13. The Appellant has not been able to establish any larger public interest, aimed to be served by disclosure of the personal information of a colleague of her own fraternity merely because she claims to have suspicion about a vakalatnama signed by her. As a lawyer, as the Appellant claims herself to be, she is expected to be aware of the personal and educational details submitted by advocates at the time of enrolment before the Bar Council which are held by the Bar Council in fiduciary capacity and yet the Appellant seeks the information only to clear her suspicion/doubt.

14. After detailed examination of the facts hereinabove, the Commission finds that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate any larger public interest for disclosure of the personal information of a third party, held in fiduciary capacity by the Respondent. In the given circumstances, the response sent by the Respondent is found legally appropriate and upheld and hence no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

Raj Kumar Goyal (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2024/128537 Page 5 of 6 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2024/128537 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)