Central Information Commission
Naresh Jindal vs Bar Council Of India on 14 January, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/BCOIN/C/2024/645063
Naresh Jindal ...निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bar Council Of India
New Delhi ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 17.08.2024 FA : Not on record Complaint : 09.10.2024
CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record Hearing : 12.12.2025
Date of Interim Decision: 22.12.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 17.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
➢ This is with reference to my complaint dated 22.07.2024 under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 against Advocate Balvinder Singh Arora & Ajay Srivastava bearing Complaint No. 201 of 2024 which was filed before your good office on 23.07.2024. Below are the following questions with regard to above said complaint, seeking information as under: -
1. Please provide information when the aforesaid complaint shall be taken/heard by your good office?Page 1 of 5
2. Have you received any information/ declaration from Adv. Balvinder Singh Arora (Enrollment No. D/782/88) regarding order dated 26.09.2023 convicting him U/s 341/384/506 (Part I)/34 IPC in Cr. Cases 40006/2016 as passed by Ld. MM, Sh. Kapil Gupta, New Delhi, PHC?
3. If the answer to the above question No. 2 is "Yes", please provide information when the same information/ declaration was received from Adv. Balvinder Singh Arora and what action was taken against him by Hon'ble Council?
4. If the answer to the questions No. 2 is "No", have you taken any action as per the Bar Council of India Rules under Part VI Section IVA Rule 43?
5. Have you received any information/ declaration from Adv. Ajay Srivastava (Enrolment No. D/ 7185/2018) regarding order dated 26.09.2023 convicting him U/s 341/384/506 (Part I)/34 IPC in Cr. Cases 40006/2016 as passed by Ld. MM, Sh. Kapil Gupta, New Delhi, PHC? Etc.
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 09.10.2024.
3. The Complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Tanishq Srivastava, representative of CPIO attended the hearing in person.
4. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that it was not a case of non-response, as claimed by the complainant in his complaint. He submitted that the erstwhile CPIO had replied to the complainant on 30.09.2024 and the contents thereof are extracted below for reference:
"1. It is informed that complaint No. 210/2024 was considered by the Bar Council of Delhi in its meeting held on 06.09.2024 and passed the following orders:-
"Complainant is present in person along with Mr. Mridul Jindal, Advocate (D/3547/2021). Present none for the Respondent, nor any reply has been filed. However, complaint perused. Complainant alleges that the respondents are depicted as using their positions as advocates to commit criminal acts against the Page 2 of 5 complainant and had accused above two Respondent advocates of professional misconduct and criminal behavior and submits that in the year 2003, the respondents allegedly extorted money from the complainant by forcefully making him sign a promissory note in a locked chamber and despite the complainant's attempts to seek police intervention, an FIR was only registered after a court order and were convicted and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed upon them. Council is of the view that the complaint does not explicitly state a professional relationship between the complainant and the respondents and furthermore, the Complainant has already availed the remedies before the concerned authorities. No prima facie case of professional or other misconduct is made out against the Respondent Advocate. Dismissed on merits."
2, 3, 5, 6. No 4&7. Once a Complaint is received by the Bar Council of Delhi that the person has been convicted and has not given the declaration regarding the Court case. The action is then taken under BCI Rule Para- VI, Section IV-A, Rule 43.
8. From 1st January, 2024 to 17th August, 2024, 235 complaints have been registered u/s 35 of Advocate Act, 1961 and 232 have been placed before the Bar Council of Delhi. As regards providing year-wise information in tabular form, it is a third party information and your application has not disclosed any larger public interest.
9. It is informed that 285 complaints have been registered till 25.09.2024.
In compliance of order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreane Court of India in the Contempt Petition (C) No.309/2022 titled as Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal Vs. Vasant D. Salunkhe & Ors. as also communication in this regard received from the Bar Council of India dated 17.10.2022, period of one year has been lapsed from the date of receipt of complaint has been sent to Bar Council of India for further proceedings."
Page 3 of 5Further, the CPIO argued that the reply was given to the complainant before filing the first appeal dated 09.10.2024 and that the complainant had challenged the contents of the reply given by them. Further, they had disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 16.10.2024, wherein their reply dated 30.09.2024 was upheld.
5. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent claimed to have replied on 30.09.2024, contrary to the complainant's contention in his complaint. It is also observed that the CPIO's contention with respect to contents of the first appeal are misplaced, keeping in view the grounds of the first appeal which clearly elucidate the claim of non-response. The representatives of the respondent are counseled to be more prepared and thorough with the matter and related files, especially, with the documents tendered along with their own written submissions. Moreover, perusal of records reveals that the copy of CPIO's reply dated 30.09.2024, claimed to have been supplied to the complainant, is incomplete and does not contain all pages. Further, no dispatch proof in respect of the said reply has been attached by the CPIO, thereby raising doubts on the veracity of their claim of response.
In view of the above, the respondent is directed to SHOW-CAUSE & submit detailed explanations for not providing a copy of the complete reply along with their latest written submissions dated 11.12.2025, claimed to have been furnished to the complainant earlier, and for having failed to produce proof of dispatch/delivery of the said reply. The written explanation of the CPIO shall be sent to the Commission both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link- paper-compliance/add within 15 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, the complaint is reserved for final decision.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 22.12.2025 Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोखरियाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Bar Council Of Delhi, CPIO, RTI Cell, 2/6, Siri Institutional Area, Khel Gaon Marg, Siri Fort, New Delhi-110049
2. Naresh Jindal Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)