The Hans India: Hyderabad: Tuesday,
June 21, 2016.
Bar Council
of India (BCI) is a statutory body of advocates meant for protecting the values
and ethical standards of the legal profession.
This profession had a lion’s share in the struggle for independence of
India, with Gandhi, Nehru and several other prominent leaders of national
movement being lawyers.
The standards
of profession and legal education are the responsibilities of the BCI. It has
to take care of law colleges to produce worthy lawyers, and see those lawyers
conduct themselves worthy of their profession.
Not complying
with the Section 4(1) (b) needs to be considered as a major breach of RTI Act
by the prestigious statutory body, BCI. It is also surprising that they are
repeatedly taking a plea that, though they have such information in computer,
they have not posted it on website. They have already exhausted 10 years of
time in fulfilling this obligation.”
Being a
public authority, the Bar Council of India has to comply with mandatory RTI
requirements. Central Information
Commission (CIC) had to order that Bar Council of India should comply with the
mandatory RTI requirements. In a second
appeal, the CIC has directed the BCI Chairman to inform when they would be
complying with 4(1) (b) on their official website.
The Section 4
(1) (b) of the RTI Act states that every public authority shall maintain 17
specified categories of updated information about the working of the
organisation which should be posted on its website as well as in public domain
through other methods.
Within 120
days from the commencement of the Act, every public authority is required to
comply with this mandatory requirement. An advocate, K R Chitra, had sought
information related to inspection and meetings conducted by the BCI.
Not complying
with the Section 4(1)(b) needs to be considered as a major breach of RTI Act by
the prestigious statutory body, BCI. It is also surprising that they are
repeatedly taking a plea that, though they have such information in computer,
they have not posted it on website. They have already exhausted 10 years of
time in fulfilling this obligation.”
The BCI has
another statutory duty to furnish annual report in compliance with 4(1) (b), as
required under Section 19(8) (a) (vi).
The CIC also directed the PIO to show cause why maximum penalty should
not be imposed for this breach of RTI.
The Commission
required the Chairman, BCI, to file an affidavit, explaining when they would be
complying with 4(1) (b) on their official website. The Commission said that all
the responses should reach the commission by May 9, 2016, else it will be
compelled to initiate appropriate action against the Chairman, BCI, for
noncompliance of the Section 4(1) (b).
The appellant
by her RTI application sought information relating to inspection of all law
colleges, universities/institutions and other meetings by the members of the
Bar Council of India during the period from 01.04.2010 till date.
She wanted
the names of members of Bar Council of India, names of all law
colleges/universities and institutions inspected by each member,
date/month/years of inspection etc. The PIO replied on 12.10.2015 providing
parawise reply. First appeal was dismissed on 29.11.2015 as the PIO has
provided information.
The PIO of
Bar Council stated that they offered NIC to prepare a comprehensive website to
post information as required under section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act including the
information about inspection of law colleges as sought by the appellant. The
appellant is asking complete details on 7 points, which involves huge
information.
For example,
the first question, seeking inspection reports on all colleges, universities,
etc. from 2010 till date along with several details. The PIO submitted that
there are thousands of colleges and other institutions, and inspection details
about them are impossible to be given unless the appellant focuses on a
specific institution or period.
She refused
to reduce the ambit of questions and insisted on inspection or information in
the form of CD.
The Commission holds that the appellant is
adamant on seeking unnecessary details.
However, it is noticed that the Bar Council of India has not
satisfactorily complied with the Section 4(1)(b) requirements. It is a major
breach of RTI by prestigious organisation called the BCI.
It is also
surprising that they are repeatedly taking a plea that, though they have such
information in computer, they have not posted it on website. They have already
exhausted 10 years of time in fulfilling this obligation.
The
Commission directed the public authority to furnish annual report in compliance
with 4(1)(b), as required under section 19(8)(a)(vi) and directed the PIO to
show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed for this breach of RTI.
The
Commission also directed the Chairman, BCI to file an affidavit explaining when
they would be complying with 4(1)(b) on their official website, all the
responses should reach the commission by May 9, 2016. If not, Commission will
be compelled to initiate appropriate action against the Chairman, BCI for non-
compliance of section 4(1)(b), which was sought under section 3 by the
appellant in this case as that amounts to denial of information attracting the
penalties. (based on decision in CIC/SA/A/2016/000023 7.4.2016 KR Chitra v BCI)
Action
against complaints
In an earlier
order, the Central Information Commissioner has ruled that Bar Councils and
Associations, being established under the Advocates Act, come under the purview
of the Right to Information Act. The CIC was hearing an appeal filed by one
Harinder Dhingra, who had sought information regarding the number of complaints
filed against advocates under Section 35 of the Advocates Act in the past 10
years.
He also
sought to know the number of cases disposed of, number of advocates alleged to
have committed misconduct or unethical conduct as per provisions of Advocates
Act, etc. This information was sought with regard to the lawyers enrolled with
the Bar Associations located at Rewari, Faridabad, Punchkula and Gurgaon, for
at least 3 years.
He further
demanded to know the number of disciplinary cases against advocates, which were
sent to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh, by the Bar
Associations located at Rewari, Faridabad, Punchkula and Gurgaon.
The CIC
observed that the Bar Council is a statutory body constituted under Advocates
Act, 1961, “to protect ethical standards of advocates and admonish the members
for misconduct.” It then ruled that the information sought from the Bar Council
cannot be denied to the appellant as it does not attract any exemption under
the RTI Act. The CIC further observed that even though Bar Associations are
different from Bar Councils, they are also constituted under a law made by the
Parliament, i.e. the Advocates Act, 1961.
“They too
have a duty to inform the people about their activities,” it ruled. Finally,
the CIC issued the following directions: “The Commission directs the Bar
Council of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, to furnish the information sought.
The action
taken under Section 35 by the Bar Council should be published under Section
4(1)(b) of the RTI Act on their own without anybody need to see it. The
Complaints also might have emanated from district bar associations and reach the
Bar Council of the State.
Though Bar
Associations are different from Bar Councils, they are also constituted under a
law made by Parliament, i.e., the Advocates Act, 1961. They too have a duty to
inform the people about their activities. “
The Commission
directed the Presidents of the Bar Associations at Rewari, Faridabad, Punchkula
and Gurgaon, to provide copies of complaints against, if any, forwarded by them
to the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. It also directed the FAA/Bar Council of
Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh to show cause why disciplinary action cannot
be recommended against him for not taking up the first appeal of the appellant.
.JPG)
.JPG)
