Central Information Commission
Roshani A. Joshi vs Bar Council Of India on 29 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/2024/651513
Ms. Roshani A. Joshi ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO,
Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.07.2025
Date of Decision : 24.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.05.2024
PIO replied on : 28.06.2024
First Appeal filed on : 25.07.2024
First Appellate Order on : - -
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 09.11.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.05.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"With respect to one Advocate namely, Mr. Amit Mishra, registered with Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa bearing Enrollment number MAH/3526/2017, kindly provide me with the information as enumerated hereinbelow:
1) Name of the School from which, the matriculation (10th) education was pursued & qualified
2) Name of the city & state of the School from which, the Higher matriculation (10th) education was pursued & qualified
3) Passing date, month & year of the matriculation (10th) examination
4) Total number of marks secured in the matriculation (10th) examination
5) Total percentage secured in the matriculation (10th) examination
6) Certified Copies of Mark sheets issued by the University /Institution from which the matriculation (10th) education was qualified
7) Name of the School from which, the Higher Secondary (12th) education was pursued & qualified
8) Name of the city & state of the School from which, the Higher Secondary (12th) education was pursued & qualified Page 1
9) Passing date, month & year of the Higher Secondary (12th) examination
10) Total number of marks secured in the Higher Secondary (12th) examination 11) Total percentage secured in the Higher Secondary (12th) examination
12) Certified Copies of Mark sheets issued by the University /Institution from which the Higher Secondary (12th) education was qualified
13) Certified copy of the Higher Secondary (12th) Certificate issued by the concerned University."
The CPIO vide letter dated 28.06.2024 replied as under:-
"Xx The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa is discharging its functions U/s 6 of the Advocate Act which including to protect the right and privilege of the advocates Maintenance of the Electoral Roll is a part of it. The information demanded by you has no Public Relevancy, in view of Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 Under such circumstances, no such information can be provided."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.07.2024.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A combined written submission/affidavit of reply dated 19.07.2025 has been received from the CPIO in reference to 21 Second Appeals listed for hearing and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..Written submissions dated 19.07.2025 has been received from
8. The Appellant is a habitual in filing the multiple applications of RTI against the same person. The Appellant has filed RTI application against 4 persons. Out of which the Appellant has filed 5 RTI applications against 3 persons and 6 applications against 1 person. Thus the Appellant has filed in all 21 applications against the 4 persons. Inspite of receiving the information sought by the Appellant, the Appellant is filing the similar applications in different format against the same person. The Office of the Bar Council supplied the same information to the Appellant. The Appellant is habitual of filing and misusing applications. The Appellant is filing the applications and seeking the personal data of the persons.
I say that the Appellant is filing such miscellaneous applications only to make money from the Authority in case of the delay in giving the information.
9. I say that the information sought by the Appellant has already been given on time and there is no delay in supplying the details to the Appellant..."
Page 2 A combined written submission dated 23.07.2025 has been received from the CPIO in reference to 21 Second Appeals listed for hearing and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Sharad Bagul, Secretary/Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and Mr. Nelson Rajan, Advocate- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
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. They averred that the Appellant has filed similar RTI applications in different format seeking information related to third parties. They stated that information sought in the instant RTI Application is personal information of third party and same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and based on submissions made during hearing observes that Appellant has sought information which qualifies as personal information of third-party and same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further no larger public interest has been invoked by the Appellant. In view of this, Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a landmark judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein aspect of "personal information" has been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"...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 Page 3 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..."
[Emphasis Supplied] Adverting to the supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of "personal information" which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Commission taking into account the facts of the referred case deny the request of Appellant for disclosure of the information and upholds the submission of the PIO. No further action lies. The appeal is disposed off 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 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)