Central Information Commission
Girish Mittal vs Bar Council Of India on 9 December, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. (As Per Annexure)
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No.
Girish Mittal ... अपीलकता/Appellant
...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bar Council of India,
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal/Complaint:
Sl. Second Date of RTI Date of Date of Date of Date of
No. Appeal Application CPIO's First FAA's Second
No./Com Reply Appeal Order Appeal/Co
plaint mplaint
1. 645329 22.04.2024 29.04.2024 29.04.2024 09.07.2024 11.10.2024
2. 652362 08.10.2024 Not on Not on Not on 25.11.2024
record record record
3. 652361 11.10.2024 Not on Not on Not on 25.11.2024
record record record
4. 652360 08.08.2024 23.09.2024 24.09.024 Not on 25.11.2024
record
Note - The above-mentioned Appeals/complaints have been clubbed together for
decision as they relate to similar subject matter and are between the same parties.
Date of Hearing: 26.11.2025
Date of Decision: 08.12.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Page 1 of 8
Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2024/645329
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
a) Compliance of section 4(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. If the information is available on the website, the link of the same may be provided.
b) Audited accounts of the last 5 years of BCI, including any funds BCI has created.
The same may please be provided as scanned copy by email. 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
a) It is to inform you that most of the information in compliance of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, is available on website. You may visit on website i.e. www.barcouncilofindia.org
b) The audited accounts of the Bar Council of India for the last 5 years is already published in the Gazette of India, however for the F.Y. 2022-23 is being published in Gazette of India.
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 09.07.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO with the remark that correct and sufficient information has been provided by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 11.10.2024.
Complaint No. CIC/BCOIN/C/2024/652362
2. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.10.2024 seeking information on the following points:
a) Kindly provide copy of the Bar Council of India Pearl Trust - trust deed/ memorandum of association/ incorporation documents by whatever name it may be called.
b) Kindly provide copy of the Income/Expenditure & Balance sheet for the last 3 years available for the Bar Council of India Pearl Trust.Page 2 of 8
c) Kindly provide copy of the minutes of meeting of the Trustees for the last 3 years.
d) I am happy to receive any of the information available in soft copy format by email.
2.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 25.11.2024.
Complaint No. CIC/BCOIN/C/2024/652361
3. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.10.2024 seeking information on the following points:
a) Kindly provide copies of the minutes of meeting of Legal Education Committee for last 3 years.
b) Kindly provide the reports of the inspection committees for approval of grant of new CLEs/ Universities submitted in last 1 year.
c) Kindly provide the reports of the inspection committees for renewal of approval of grant of new CLEs/ Universities submitted in last 1 year.
d) Kindly provide the list of the CLEs/Universities whose renewal application have been submitted and fees paid, but inspection has not been carried out.
e) Kindly provide list of CLEs/Universities whose recognition has been cancelled/ deemed to have been cancelled for want of inspection.
3.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 25.11.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2024/652360
4. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
a) Minutes of the meeting of the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India for the last 3 years.
b) Copies of the inspection report (or any such report by whatever name it may be called) for the recognition of new Law Colleges by the Bar Council of India.
4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Due to waterlogging in the basement of the office of Bar Council of India where the CPIO and other staff of Bar Council India sits, there is a delay in replying to Page 3 of 8 your RTI application. Inconvenience caused is regretted. With regard to your online RTI, it is to inform that the information sought by you is vague in nature, hence the same cannot be provided."
4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 24.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 4.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 25.11.2024. Hearing Proceedings & Decision
5. The appellant/complainant attended hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey - Secretary, BCI and Mr. Girish Chandra - Asstt. III attended the hearing in person.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was not satisfied since either the replies were not complete or no reply was given at all. He stated that even the FAA's order was very cryptic.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that though replies had been provided to the appellant/complainant in all the cases, but the appellant/complainant had chosen not to submit the complete records before the Commission. On being asked by the Commission about the dates and copies of replies claimed to have been furnished by the respondent, no substantial document was submitted in support of their contentions.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that each case has to be dealt with separately. Accordingly, the proceedings with respect to each case is as under:
Page 4 of 81. Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2024/645329: In this case, the PIO appears to have provided adequate information in response to the appellant's queries. Hence, in this case, no further intervention is warranted under the RTI Act. The case is dismissed accordingly.
2. Complaint No. CIC/BCOIN/C/2024/652362 The respondent has submitted a written submission dated 24.11.2025 claiming that reply dated 17.02.2025 had been sent to the complainant in response to his RTI application dated 08.10.2024. However, neither copy of the reply dated 17.02.2025 nor contents thereof have been placed on record before the Commission by the respondent. The Respondent has also not explained the cause of delay in reply. In the given circumstances, the Commission is constrained to issue SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO Mr. Anil Kumar- CPIO, BCI who should explain as to why penalty should not be levied upon him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for not furnishing any response and even in the written submission only mentioned a reply dated 17.02.2025 with no further particulars. This has resulted in causing obstruction of information to the complainant, without justifiable cause. The Respondent/Noticee must suitably explain the violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and denial of access to information to the complainant, by a proper written explanation along with supporting documents, if any, which should be sent to the Commission as advance submission atleast 48 hours prior to the hearing.
3. Complaint No. CIC/BCOIN/C/2024/652361 The respondent has submitted a written submission dated 18.11.2025 claiming that reply dated 28.12.2024 had been sent to the complainant in response to his RTI application dated 11.10.2024, though a copy of the reply dated 28.12.2024 has not been placed on record before the Commission by the respondent. The Respondent has submitted in the written submission dated 18.11.2025 as under:
"the applicant had not mentioned the date of meeting etc. information about which specific Centre of Legal Education/Specific Item/agenda he is looking for. Under the absence of aforesaid, the CPIO could not furnish any information. It is also necessary to clarify that the inspection report prepared by the inspection team is an internal fact-finding document meant exclusively for the consideration of the Standing Page 5 of 8 Committee of Legal Education Committee of Bar Council of India. As the Standing Committee undertakes an evaluative and reasoned decision-making process that incorporates and interprets the contents of the inspection report in light of the Rules of Legal Education and relevant circulars, the Bar Council of India does not ordinarily supply copies of inspection reports to any applicant institution or party. The institution is duly informed of the final decision of the Standing Committee along with the reasons forming the basis of that decision."
The Commission finds that the reply claimed to have been sent by the respondent and mentioned in the written submission has not been placed on record. Moreover, queries number (d) and (e) could have been responded by the respondent with more information. Accordingly, the PIO, BCI is directed to submit a suitable explanation as to why no action should be initiated for the vague and evasive reply which has not even been submitted before the Commission. The explanation must reach the Commission, both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add, within four weeks of receipt of this order, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated suo motu, in terms of law.
4. Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2024/652360 The respondent has submitted a written submission dated 18.11.2025 claiming that reply dated 23.09.2024 had been sent to the appellant in response to his RTI application dated 08.08.2024. The Respondent has submitted in the written submission dated 18.11.2025 as under:
"the applicant had not mentioned the date of meeting etc, information about which specific Centre of Legal Education/Specific Item/agenda he is looking for. Under the absence of aforesaid, the CPIO could not furnish any information. It is also necessary to clarify that the inspection report prepared by the inspection team is an internal fact-finding document meant exclusively for the consideration of the Standing Committee of Legal Education Committee of Bar Council of India. As the Standing Committee undertakes an evaluative and reasoned decision-making process that incorporates and interprets the contents of the inspection report in light of the Rules of Legal Education and relevant circulars, the Bar Council of India does not ordinarily supply copies of inspection reports to any applicant institution or party. The institution is Page 6 of 8 duly informed of the final decision of the Standing Committee along with the reasons forming the basis of that decision."
The Commission finds that though the PIO's reply was appropriate, there is inconsistency in the PIO's reply dated 23.09.2024 and the contents of the aforementioned written submission dated 18.11.2025. The Respondent present during hearing were not prepared to justify the inconsistency between the PIO's reply and the contents of the written submission. Accordingly, the PIO, BCI is hereby directed to submit a suitable explanation as to why no action should be initiated for the variations in their stance. The explanation must reach the Commission, both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add, within four weeks of receipt of this order, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated suo motu, in terms of law. The aforementioned cases are disposed of with the above directions.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 08.12.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 011-26180514 Page 7 of 8 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Bar Council of India, CPIO, RTI Cell, 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi - 110002 2 Girish Mittal Annexure of Second Appeals Sl. No. Second Appeal No. 1 CIC/BCOIN/A/2024/645329 2 CIC/BCOIN/C/2024/652362 3 CIC/BCOIN/C/2024/652361 4 CIC/BCOIN/A/2024/652360 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)