Central Information Commission
Sanjay Thul vs Bar Council Of India on 24 July, 2020
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.(s):- CIC/BCOI/A/2018/165898-BJ+
CIC/BCOI/A/2018/635910-BJ
Mr. Sanjay Thul
(e mail: [email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bar Council of India,
21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area,
Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi - 110002
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.07.2020
Date of Decision : 24.07.2020
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/BCOI/A/2018/165898-BJ Date of RTI application 30.03.2018 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 30.04.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 05.11.2018 FACTS The Appellant vide his RTIs application sought information in reference to exorbitant fee charged for conducting CLAT Examination (4000/- for General Category and 3500/- for SC/ST) whereas for same kind of examination, the Maharashtra Govt. charges Rs. 300/-, the guidelines and control of Bar Council on the Law Universities in India.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
Page 1 of 7
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/BCOI/A/2018/635910-BJ
Date of RTI application 30.03.2018
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 30.04.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in reference to exorbitant fee charged for conducting CLAT (4000/- for General Category and 3500/- for SC/ST) whereas for same kind of examination, the Maharashtra Govt. charges Rs. 300/-, the guidelines and control of Bar Council on the Law Universities in India.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Thul through VC;
Respondent: Absent;
The Respondent remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation. On enquiry, it was gathered that the notice of hearing sent to the Respondent Public Authority in File Nos. CIC/BCOI/A/2018/165898-BJ+CIC/BCOI/A/2018/635910-BJ was delivered on 06.07.2020 as per track consignment. The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought was not provided by the CPIO/FAA, within the stipulated time period, as prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005. While explaining the background of the case, he inter alia submitted that National Law Universities which were established to provide quality legal education to students are charging excessive fees in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) examination as well as Professional Courses. The Application fee of CLAT is Rs.4000 since 2016. The matter went to the Supreme Court and a permanent body was constituted called Consortium of NLU's to conduct these exams with reasonable fees however the same body is also charging Rs.4000 as an application fee in the year 2020. Whereas in other examinations like JEE Mains and MH-CET, the examination fee is Rs. 650 and Rs.500 respectively. Moreover, these NLU's on an average charge 2.5 lakh per year for undergraduate courses whereas ILS Pune, GLC Mumbai which also provides same quality of legal education but on an average only charges Rs.6520 annually. Therefore, he requested the Commission to look into the matter sympathetically and give directions to the Respondent Public Authority to fulfill its obligation by regulating the excessive fee charged for conducting CLAT Examination as well fee structure in the NLUs. He also submitted that National Law Universities should suo motu disclose the total fee collected and its utilization for maintaining transparency and accountability in the institution.
On a query from the Commission whether any reply was received from the CPIO/FAA, he informed that the CPIO had provided a reply on 04.11.2019 wherein it was informed that no such information was available with them. The FAA had also directed the CPIO, vide its order dated Page 2 of 7 24.09.2019 for furnishing a reply but no response was provided. He also prayed for imposition of penalty on the erring CPIO for not responding to the RTI application within the stipulated time period as also cost to be imposed for mental harassment caused to him. The Commission repeatedly noted that no response was provided by the CPIO/FAA within the stipulated time frame which was in contravention to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated Nil wherein it was inter alia submitted that National Law Universities which were established to provide quality legal education to students are charging excessive fees in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) examination as well as Professional Courses. The Application fee of CLAT is Rs.4000 since 2016. When this matter went to the Supreme Court then a permanent body was made called Consortium of NLU's to conduct these exams with reasonable fees however the same body is also charging Rs.4000 as an application fee in the year 2020. Moreover, these NLU's on an average charge 2.5 lakh per year for undergraduate courses. It was humbly submitted that BCCI has a duty to regulate these National Law Universities (NLU's) so that they do not charge arbitrary fees from the students. He further submitted that BCCI has failed to fulfill its obligation to regulate these universities as also denied information and therefore, it was prayed to impose penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 on BCCI.
The Commission felt that timely response is the essence of the RTI mechanism enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
With regard to providing a clear and cogent response to the Appellant, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken".
The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
Page 3 of 78.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non- disclosure."
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed ".....that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only.
The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing Page 4 of 7 transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."Page 5 of 7
The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant, the Commission expressed its deep displeasure over the poor handling of the RTI matters in the public authority being totally ignorant of the letter and spirit behind the enactment of this law and therefore, directs the Secretary, BCI, to sensitize and familiarize the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Commission noted that no reply was provided within the stipulated time period by the Respondent in the matter, which is a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, instructs the CPIO to show cause why action should not be taken under the provisions of the Act for this misconduct and negligence. The Commission therefore, directs the CPIO to explain why penal action should not be taken as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country.
It is appalling to note that the FAA had also not acted in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore is advised to be alert and cautious in the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 with due diligence and care.
The Appeals stand disposed with the above directions.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 24.07.2020
Page 6 of 7
Copy to:-
1. Secretary, Bar Council of India, 21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area, New Delhi - 110002 Page 7 of 7