Bar & Bench: New Delhi: Friday, February 17, 2017.
Justice
Sanjeev Sachdeva of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday held that the details of
full house meetings of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) cannot be made public
under the Right to Information Act.
The matter
was an appeal to the orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC) passed
in August and December last year, directing that details regarding the minutes
of the meetings of the BCD from 2010 to 2015 be disclosed to the public.
In an RTI
filed in March 2015, information regarding the BCD’s full house meetings,
sources of income and accumulation of funds was sought. On the Public
Information Officer’s refusal to provide the same, the CIC had issued a show
cause notice asking why penalty should not be imposed for denying the
information.
Senior
counsel Arvind Nigam, appearing for BCD, had contended that the information
about the minutes of full house meetings contained confidential and personal
information of third parties. He also argued that the BCD conducts disciplinary
proceedings under the Advocates Act, 1961, which involve third parties.
Disclosure of information that contains third party details are exempted under
the RTI Act.
Further, it
was submitted that the minutes of meetings also contained personal information
about the advocates who seek financial aid on medical grounds, the disclosure
of which is also exempted under the Act.
Justice
Sachdeva held,
“By the
impugned order, the CIC held that the minutes of the full house of the Bar
Council should be disclosed and put in public domain and also on the website of
the Bar Council.
…It is this
information which has been directed to be put in public domain. The CIC,
clearly fell in error in issuing the direction of putting all such information
in public domain.”
Under
Sections 6 and 36 of the Advocates Act, the State Bar Councils perform various
functions, including safeguarding the rights, privileges, and interests of the
advocates on roll, as well as exercise of disciplinary powers.
In this
regard the bench held,
“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.
…Putting all
the minutes in public domain and on the website would imply making public the
confidential personal information and also information received by Bar Council
in fiduciary capacity.”
The Court
further held that Section 12 of the Advocates Act requires the accounts of the
State Bar Councils to be audited, the copy of which is required to be sent
along with the report of the auditor to the Bar Council of India. This report
is required to be published in the Official Gazette, thereby making it
available to the public.
However,
the Court also held,
“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.”
The single
judge bench therefore quashed the CIC orders as well as the proceedings
initiated by the CIC requiring the PIO to show cause as to why the information
wasn’t disclosed.
.JPG)
.JPG)
