Live Law: New Delhi: Wednesday, June 22, 2016.
Parliament
reposed huge confidence in Bar Council of India (BCI) making it a statutory
body of Advocates entrusting with responsibility of protecting the values and
ethical standards of the legal profession and education. This professional
members led the struggle for independence of India, with Gandhi, Nehru and
several other prominent leaders being lawyers of eminence. Gandhi’s book on
Lawyers has to occupy the hands of every lawyer before they pick up CPC. Quest
for justice has to be imbibed in budding lawyers in their colleges. The
standards of profession and legal education are the responsibilities of the
BCI. It has to take care of legal colleges to produce worthy lawyers, and see
those lawyers conduct themselves worthy of their profession.
Central
Information Commission has to order that Bar Council of India should comply
with Mandatory RTI requirements. In a second appeal the CIC has directed the
BCI Chairman to explain when they would be complying with 4(1) (b) on their
official website.
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 in public domain using ICT. Every public
authority has only 120 days from October 12, 2005. It’s sad that after ten
years also some of the public authorities did not make their basic information
public. An Advocate Mrs. K.R. Chitra had sought information related to
inspection and meetings conducted by BCI.
Not complying
with the Section 4(1)(b) need to be considered as a major breach of RTI Act by
prestigious statutory professional body, the BCI which contribute lawyers and
judges to the system of justice besides laying foundation for their education.
It is surprising that they are repeatedly taking a plea that, though they have
such information in computer, they have not posted it on website.
The BCI has
another statutory duty to furnish annual report in compliance with 4(1) (b), as
required under section 19(8) (a) (vi). CIC also directed the PIO to show cause
why maximum penalty should not be imposed for this breach of RTI. 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 section 4(1) (b).
Appellant by
his RTI application had 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.
PIO replied on 12.10.2015 providing parawise reply. First Appeal was dismissed
on 29.11.2015 dismissed the appeal as he was satisfied that 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 PIO
said that there are thousands of colleges and other institutions, inspection
details about which is 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.
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
organization called BCI. Commission asked BCI to furnish annual report in
compliance with 4(1)(b), as required under section 19(8)(a)(vi) and directs the
PIO to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed for this breach of
RTI. The Commission directed the Chairman, BCI to file an affidavit explaining
when they would be complying with 4(1)(b) on their official website 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 Mr.
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 Bar
Council is a statutory body constituted under Advocates Act, 1961, “to protect
ethical standards of Advocates and admonish the members for misconduct.” The
CIC 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 Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana,
Chandigarh to furnish the information sought: action taken under Section 35 by
the Bar Council should be published under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act on
their own; 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.
(Professor
Madabhushi Sridhar is a Columnist, Media Law Researcher and Central Information
Commissioner.)
.JPG)
.JPG)
