2019 (8) TMI 494 - Board - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Disclosure of list of insolvency professionals against whom disciplinary proceeding is under process - Right to Information Act, 2005 - HELD THAT - Disciplinary proceedings before the Board are quasi-judicial in nature and any disclosure of the names of IPs against whom such proceedings are ongoing would impede the investigation process due to unwarranted public attention. Moreover, such processes can be at various stages. Mere issuance of a show cause notice to an IP does not imply that such person is guilty of any misconduct. It is merely seeking an explanation from the IP of any aberration in the established process. If, there is any gap in the explanation provided by the IP, then further action is taken by the Board. Revealing the names of such IPs, is likely to harm their practice as most of the IPs are established professionals like Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, Cost Accountants, Advocates and managerial experts. The request of the appellant to disclose the list of insolvency professionals against whom disciplinary proceeding is under process cannot be accepted - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeal against RTI order regarding disclosure of information on insolvency professionals under disciplinary proceedings

Analysis:
1. RTI Request and Response:
- Mr. Nipun Singhvi appealed against the CPIO's decision to not disclose the list of insolvency professionals under disciplinary proceedings. The CPIO cited Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, stating that sharing such information could impede the prosecution and adjudication process.

2. Appellant's Contention:
- Mr. Singhvi argued that the CPIO's response was unsatisfactory and against the interest of stakeholders. He highlighted the circular stating that IPs under disciplinary proceedings should not accept new assignments.

3. Board's Examination:
- The Board conducts inspection and investigation of IPs in three stages: inspection, show-cause notice, and Disciplinary Committee review. The concern was raised that IPs under investigation might be appointed as IRPs, affecting the legal process.

4. Preventing Appointment of IPs under Disciplinary Proceedings:
- The Adjudicating Authority appoints IRPs after ensuring no pending disciplinary proceedings. IPs must submit a consent form certifying no ongoing investigations. The Board maintains a panel of clear IPs for appointments and updates a list of IPs with pending proceedings on its website.

5. Legal Provisions and Precedents:
- Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts information that could impede investigations or prosecutions. Quasi-judicial disciplinary proceedings are sensitive, and disclosing names could harm IPs' reputations and benefit competitors.

6. Judgment and Conclusion:
- Disclosing names of IPs under disciplinary proceedings could impede the investigation process and harm their professional standing. The Board's existing checks and procedures adequately address concerns about appointments. Therefore, the appeal for disclosure was rejected, and the matter was disposed of.