Central Information Commission
Vedansh Pandey vs Bar Council Of India on 8 February, 2022
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/2020/671252
Vedansh Pandey ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bar Council of India , RTI
Cell,21, Rouse Avenue
Institutional Area Rd, Near
Bal Bhawan, New Delhi-110002 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/01/2022
Date of Decision : 04/02/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 27/02/2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : NIL
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21/05/2020
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 27.02.2020 seeking the following information:1
1. Please share all the documents and record of the correspondence between Faculty of Law And Bar Council of India in relation to compliance of Rules of Legal Education - 2008 framed by Bar Council of India.
2. Please provide certified copies of all the corresponding diary entries of the information sought in point no.1.
3. Please provide all the documents and records submitted to Bar Council of India by the Faculty of Law/ University of Delhi in compliance of Rule 8 (c) of Rules of Legal Education - 2008 framed by Bar Council of India including certified copies of curriculum designed and developed in each course of study, rules of academic discipline and of examination and evaluation and also amendments to those as and when so amended.
4. Please provide certified copies of diary entry of correspondence between Bar Council of India and Faculty of Law/ University of Delhi in relation to information sought in point no.3.
5. Please provide all the documents/records/communication relating to the invitation to Bar Council of India for carrying out inspection by the Faculty of Law/ University of Delhi including the invitation letter sent to BC/ in the academic year 2019-20.
6. Please provide certified copies of all the corresponding diary entries of the information sought in point no.5.
7. Please provide the certified copies of all documents/records of the regular/temporary approval granted by Bar Council of India to Faculty of Law in consonance with Rule 26 of Rules of Legal Education 2008 framed by Bar Council of India.
8. Please provide certified copies of all the corresponding diary entries of the information sought in point no.7.
9. Please provide all the inspection reports/ recommendations made by Bar Council of India to the University of Delhi/Faculty of Law in relation to the inspection conducted by Bar Council of India under the Rules of Legal Education - 2008 since the first time the Bar Council of India conducted the inspection in Faculty of Law.
10. Please provide certified copies of all the corresponding diary entries of the information sought in point no.9.
11. Please refer to letter No. BC/:D:296:2015 written by the Bar Council of India to the registrar of all the universities and the principals of all the law colleges dated 07.04.2016 regarding the moot court practice and provide certified copies of all the documents/records of communication between Faculty of Law, Law Center -1 and Bar Council of India in compliance of the said letter.2
12. Please provide certified copies of all the corresponding diary entries of the information sought in point no.11.
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Ashok Pandey, Joint Secretary & FAA present through audio conference.
The FAA submitted that reply was provided to the Complainant on 19.06.2020 informing him that due to the lockdown period and shortage of staff, providing the information of this enormity is not feasible and he was offered to inspect the relevant records.
The Complainant admitted to the receipt of the averred reply but argued that the same served no purpose as he reached out to the CPIO via email on 17.07.2020 as well as the purported telephone numbers for fixing the date and time of inspection but no response was forthcoming and till date the information has been withheld from him. He also alleged that to his surprise when he filed a First Appeal, he received a misleading response stating that the information provided to him is appropriate so he believes that it was only a ploy of the Respondent office to deny the information to him. He further brought the attention of the bench to an earlier order of the Commission passed in the year 2016 wherein reportedly BCI was directed to publish the inspection reports of the colleges on their website for the larger good of the student community and alleged that till date BCI has not complied with those directions.
The FAA was quick to interject and argue that the averred order of the year 2016 or the uploading of the inspection reports on their website is not the subject matter of concern before the Commission in this case and it should not be debated any further. He further argued that the website of the BCI amply provides for the list of the approved colleges and with respect to the Delhi 3 University as referred to in the RTI Application, the information regarding the approval accorded to it is available on the website. Further, he alleged that the Appellant is putting forth unwarranted false questions regarding the Delhi University and he has already filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court and during its pendency how can he ask for these records and if required he will produce the documents before the Hon'ble High Court to decide the matter and that the Complainant should wait out for gaining access to these records untill the writ petition is finalised by the Court.
Upon a brief discussion regarding any express order of the Court barring the disclosure of the information and no affirmative response received from the FAA, the Commission observed that the plea of the FAA is not acceptable. The FAA towards the end of the hearing proceedings submitted that the Complainant will be provided with whatever information that can be parted with on the condition that the order of the Commission should record that disclosure will be done only after the said writ petition is disposed of and urged that let the matter be first decided by the High Court.
The Complainant argued that the FAA was misleading the Commission by referring to the pending Court case and emphasised that there is no bar on the disclosure of the information by the Court.
Decision The Commission at the outset takes grave exception to the apparent unreasonably perverse approach of the FAA throughout the course of the hearing towards the mandate of the RTI Act as well as the right to information of the Complainant thereunder. The FAA clearly overstepped his mandate by passing a decision during the hearing that the earlier order of the CIC directing disclosure of the inspection reports of the law colleges to be not of concern to the Commission in this case. Similarly, the FAA's assertion that he will consider being bound to disclose the averred records only before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in pursuance of the pending writ petition of the Complainant further reinforces a rather irrational and abstruse stand of the Respondent authority in withholding the information as sought for in the instant RTI Application while also it seems to challenge the Complainant's right to information.
The Commission is aghast at the unfazed disposition and arbitrary arguments of the FAA tendered during the hearing as none of his contentions were even 4 remotely reflecting on the provisions of the RTI Act. The FAA is advised to render due regard to the sanctity of the RTI Act as well as to the hearing proceedings before the Commission in the future.
As regards the information sought for in the instant RTI Application, the Commission observes that the Complainant has largely raised unspecific queries particularly on points 1,2,4,6,8,10 & 12 and in the remaining points, the form in which information has been sought for definitely requires collection and collation of documents from scattered records. Considering this aspect, the Commission does not find any infirmity in the initial offer of inspection of the records provided to the Complainant. But, pertinently so, the argument of the Complainant that his subsequent requests to the Respondent office for fixing the date and time of inspection went unheeded was not contested by the FAA during the hearing, raising a reasonable doubt against the alleged inaction of the Respondent office and the resultant delay caused in the provision of the information.
Further, the FAA's repeated reliance on a pending writ petition of the Complainant and other arguments suggesting the provision of information as contingent or conditional upon extraneous considerations emanating merely from his wisdom and not any provision of the RTI Act is considered akin to questioning the intent of the Complainant in exercising his right to information. Section 6(2) of the RTI Act ensures against the same as under:
6. Request for obtaining information.--
(2) An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information....
Similarly, in a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ferani Hotels Private Ltd. Vs. The State Information Commissioner, Greater Mumbai & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 9064-9065 of 2018 dated 27.09.2018 it was observed as under:
"15. The purport of the said Act is apparent from Section 6 of the said Act, which provides for the manner of making a request for obtaining information. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, there is no mandate on an applicant to give any reason for requesting the information, i.e., anybody should be able to obtain the information as long as it is part of the public record of a public authority.....5
xxx
16. The only exemption from disclosure of information, of whatever nature, with the public authority is as per Sections 8 & 9 of the said Act. Thus, unless the information sought for falls under these provisions, it would be mandatory for the public authorities to disclose the information to an applicant."
Even if by according a liberal interpretation to the FAA's insistence on the pending writ petition is interpreted to mean denial of the information due to a case being sub judice, the FAA's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Dy. Commissioner of Police v. D.K. Sharma, WP(C) No. 12428 of 2009 dated 15.12.2010, wherein it was held as under:
"6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been unable to discharge that burden. The mere fact that a criminal case is pending may not by itself be sufficient unless there is a specific power to deny disclosure of the information concerning such case."
Now, based on the relief sought for in the matter and the Complainant already having exhausted the channel of First Appeal, the Commission treats the instant Complaint as a Second Appeal.
Having observed as above, the Commission directs the CPIO through the FAA to explain in writing as to why the offer of the inspection of the records was not executed despite the alleged correspondence of 17.07.2020 sent by the Complainant. The said written explanation of the CPIO should reach the Commission through the FAA within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Further, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the RTI Application indicating another opportunity of inspection of the available records relevant to the information sought for in the RTI Application to the Complainant on a mutually decided date and time. The intimation of the date and time of the inspection shall be provided to the Complainant telephonically and in writing by the CPIO. Copy of documents as desired by the Complainant during the inspection will be provided free of cost upto 100 pages and for pages exceeding this limit, 6 prescribed fees as per Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012 can be charged by the CPIO. The said directions shall be complied with by the CPIO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO immediately thereafter indicating inter alia the details of the records offered for inspection and copies provided thereof.
The FAA shall ensure timely compliance of the above direction by the CPIO.
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 िदनां क / Date Copy to:
First Appellate Authority Bar Council of India, 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area Rd, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi-110002
--(For information and to ensure compliance) 7