P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Bar Council of Delhi v. Central Information Commission and Anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (14 Feb 2017)

Minutes of full house of Bar Council should not be disclosed and put in public domain

MANU/DE/0361/2017

Civil

Petitioner impugns orders passed by Central Information Commission directing that, details sought by Respondent no. 2 be put in public domain voluntarily as per Section 4(1)(b) of Right to Information Act, 2005. Further, Commission by order issued a show cause notice to PIO as to why penalty be not imposed for denying the information. By impugned order, another opportunity was granted to Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for not providing information and not complying with commission’s order of uploading entire information on the website. By impugned order, CIC held that, minutes of full house of Bar Council should be disclosed and put in public domain and also on website of Bar Council.

Under Section 6 of Advocates Act, 1961, a State Bar Council has to perform several functions. Decisions in discharge of various functions are taken in Council meetings. In additional the Bar Council also exercises disciplinary powers conferred on it under Section 36 of Advocates Act. Perusal of Section 6 and also Section 36 shows that in its meetings, apart from general function and information, a State Bar Council would be discussing confidential personal matters of advocates. Personal and confidential issues would come up before the Bar Council for consideration. Putting all minutes in public domain and on website would imply making public confidential personal information and also information received by Bar Council in fiduciary capacity. Minutes would also contain personal information about Advocates who seek financial help on medical ground which would clearly be personal information of the third party. Such information clearly cannot be put in public domain.

Under Section 12, accounts of State Bar Council are to be audited and State Bar Council is obliged to send a copy of accounts along with report of auditor to Bar Council of India and also cause same to be published in Official Gazette. By publication in official gazette, accounts of a State Bar Council, come in public domain. Further, it may be noticed that impugned order does not contain any reasons based on which CIC formed an opinion that, information was required to be put in public domain and on the website. However, if any person is desirous of seeking any particular information, which is not exempted under the Act, he/she is always free to file an application under the Act, seeking disclosure of such information and on receipt of such an application, the Bar Council would have dealt with the same in accordance with the Act. With regard to show cause notices issued, by CIC, to the CPIO, for delay in furnishing information, it is noticed that, CPIO had responded to application filed by Respondent No. 2 within the period of 30 days. Response itself indicates that whatever information was available, was provided. The CPIO in his reply to Central Information Commission has indicated that voluminous records had been sought by Respondent no. 2. Respondent No. 2 had sought minutes of full house meetings for the period 01st April, 2010 till date of the application which was nearly five years.

Apart from contending that, information was exempt, CPIO in his reply to CIC had relied on decision of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in “State Information Commissioner Vs. Tushar Dhananjya Mandlekar, LPA No. 276 of 2012”, whereby High Court has held that where required information is general, vague and voluminous in nature, parties cannot be expected to be provided the required information within 30 days. In present case also Respondent No. 2 had sought general and voluminous information i.e. records of all meetings for a period of 5 years. The stand of Petitioner is that under orders of this court, without prejudice, the entire information has already been provided to Respondent no. 2. Impugned orders are quashed. Further, proceedings initiated by CIC, requiring Petitioner to show cause as to why action be not taken for delay in furnishing information are also quashed.

Relevant : State Information Commissioner Vs. Tushar Dhananjya Mandlekar

Tags : MEETINGS   INFORMATION   DISCLOSURE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved