2017 (2) TMI 868 - HC - Indian Laws

Right to Information form Bar Council - delay in providing information - Held that - 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 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 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, the accounts of the State Bar Council are to be audited and the State Bar Council is obliged to send a copy of the accounts along with the report of the auditor to the Bar Council of India and also cause the same to be published in the Official Gazette. By publication in the official gazette, the accounts of a State Bar Council, come in public domain. As noticed that the impugned order does not contain any reasons based on which the CIC formed an opinion that the information was required to be put in public domain and on the website. With regard to the show cause notices issued, by the CIC, to the CPIO, for delay in furnishing information, it is noticed that the CPIO had responded to the application filed by Respondent No. 2 within the period of 30 days. The Response itself indicates that whatever information was available, was provided. The CPIO in his reply to the Central Information Commission has indicated that voluminous records had been sought by the respondent no. 2. Respondent No. 2 had sought minutes of full house meetings for the period 01.04.2010 till date of the application which was nearly five years. Apart from contending that the information was exempt, the CPIO in his reply to CIC had relied on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in State Information Commissioner Vs. Tushar Dhananjya Mandlekar 2012 (7) TMI 1014 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , whereby the High Court has held that where the required information is general, vague and voluminous in nature, the parties cannot be expected to be provided the required information within 30 days. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 11.08.2015 and 01.12.2015 are quashed. Further, the proceedings initiated by the CIC, requiring the Petitioner to show cause as to why action be not taken for delay in furnishing information are also quashed. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
Impugned orders of Central Information Commission under Right to Information Act, 2005; Disclosure of confidential information of Bar Council; Compliance with CIC orders; Quashing of CIC orders and show cause notices.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns the challenge against orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing disclosure of information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner contested the disclosure of minutes of full house meetings of the Bar Council of Delhi, arguing that such information contained confidential and personal details of third parties. It was contended that disclosing decisions taken in these meetings, including disciplinary proceedings against advocates and financial aid requests, would breach privacy exemptions under the Act. The petitioner had promptly provided available financial information but cited ongoing audit as a reason for delayed complete disclosure.

The Court noted the absence of the respondent and highlighted that the petitioner had already furnished the information as per court orders. The judgment emphasized that the CIC erred in directing the disclosure of all meeting minutes, as it would reveal personal and confidential details of advocates. It referenced the functions of State Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961, which involve handling sensitive matters in meetings. The judgment underscored that putting such information in the public domain would violate privacy rights and fiduciary duties.

Regarding show cause notices issued to the CPIO for delayed information provision, the Court observed that the response was within the stipulated time, and the CPIO had cited the voluminous nature of the request. The judgment referenced a Bombay High Court decision on handling general and voluminous information requests within the designated timeframe. It concluded that the petitioner had already provided the information, and the respondent's lack of interest in further proceedings led to the quashing of the impugned CIC orders and show cause notices.

In summary, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the CIC orders directing disclosure of confidential information and the show cause notices for delayed information provision. The judgment highlighted the importance of balancing transparency with privacy concerns, especially in matters involving personal and confidential data of third parties within the legal framework of the Right to Information Act, 2005.