Central Information Commission
Ashu Gupta vs Bar Council Of India on 16 July, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2024/624876.
Shri. Ashu Gupta. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bar Council of India.
Date of Hearing : 14.07.2025
Date of Decision : 14.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.03.2024
PIO replied on : 12.04.2024
First Appeal filed on : 21.04.2024
First Appellate Order on : 24.05.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 13.06.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.03.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"1. It is informed that Greater Noida Academy of Legal Studies and Research (GNALSAR), GNIOT Group of institutions is situated at Plot No. 7, Knowledge Park 2, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP which is affiliated to CCS University, Meerut & approved by Bar Council of India, New Delhi.
2. As per the reply of RTI No. BCIND/R/E/23/01070, you have mentioned a list of faculty of the above-said institute wherein I, ASHU GUPTA, am shown as an Assistant Professor. Kindly provide a copy of the Appointment Letter submitted to you by the institute at the time of BCI Approval in the name of ASHU GUPTA (Sr.No.8)
3. Kindly provide a copy of the Salary paid slip/status or Bank Account Statement submitted to you by the institute in the name of ASHU GUPTA as the joining has shown w.e.f. 10 July 2023 @48000/-PM.
4. Kindly confirm that all the approved teachers have been working or got joining in this regard which is shown in the given faculty list in the reply of RTI No. BCIND/R/E/23/010707
5. As I have registered an RTI No. BCIND/R/E/24/00134 on dt.08/02/24 in this regard, but no reply has been received by me as the status shows the date of action was 16/02/24. Hope, you will consider the same asap."
The CPIO, vide letter dated 12.04.2024 replied as under:-
Page 1 "Reply: As regard query 2 and 3 The document sought by you is not available with the office of BCI, hence the same cannot be supplied.
As regard query 4 With regard to aforesaid query, it is to inform that it is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the duties of Central Public Information Officer, Bar Council of India under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to give explanation, opine, comment or advice on matters. Your request, to that extent, is not covered under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and cannot be acceded to.
Your attention is also drawn to the decision of Honble Apex Court as reported in Supreme Court Cases 2011 Vol 8 page 505 para g CBSE &Anr. Vs. Adhitya Bandopadhyay&Ors., which is quoted follows A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide advice or opinion to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any opinion or advice to an applicant. The reference to opinion or advice in the definition of information in Section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.
However, if you are having any grievance against the Centre of Legal Education, you may file a representation before the Secretary, B.C.I. or Head of Department, Legal Education Department. As regard query 5 Your RTI Request No. BCIND/R/E/24/00134 has already been disposed of by the CPIO on 15.3.2024"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.04.2024. The FAA upheld the reply furnished by the PIO vide order dated 09.07.2024.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 08.07.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..This is with reference to your above cited notice under the Right to Information Act, 2005 whereby Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) was directed to appear before Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner on 14.7.2025 at 12:10 PM alongwith written submission in regard to appeal/complaint filed by Mr. Ashu Gupta.
2. In this context, I am to submit that the appellant has filed the second appeal dated 10.6.2024 before the CIC on the grounds that he was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO in response to his RTI application dated 13-3-2024.
3. At the outset, I would like to submit that averment made by the appellant herein is not correct and it is wrong, therefore denied. The fact of the matter is that the CPIO has furnished the reply on 12.2.2024, to the best of his knowledge and as per the records.
Page 2 4-In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that appeal/complaint filed by the appellant does not survive against the CPIO of the Bar Council of India. Hence, the same may please be dismissed..."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Secretary, BCI participated in the hearing.
The Respondent placed on record copy of reply of PIO and order of FAA during course of proceedings.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant. He stated that information sought by the Appellant is not available in their records. He averred that the queriers raised in the instant RTI Application do not fall under the ambit of 'information' as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)