'Reasons For Delay In Deciding A Case' Is Not 'Information' Under RTI Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Thursday held that 'reasons for delay in taking a decision or deciding a case' cannot qualify 'information' as defined under the Right To Information (RTI) Act and thus, one cannot ask 'reasons' in an RTI application.

A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain quashed an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) which had imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the Secretary of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), for failing to provide information of 'reasons for delayed decision' in a complaint filed by a litigant against an advocate.

The bench referred to section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, which defines information as: "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;

"Therefore, the reasons for the alleged delay could not constitute information as defined under the Act. Reasons in many cases would be subjective. There may be disagreements on whether something constitutes reasons or in any case justifiable reasons. Therefore, the respondent (litigant) could not have asked for reasons for the 3 years delay in disposing of the preliminary enquiry against the concerned advocate," the bench recorded in its order, passed on Thursday afternoon.

In any event, the judges said, the litigant could have always applied for the Roznama and thereafter tried to ascertain the reasons for the alleged delay in disposing of the enquiry.

"Therefore, for the grounds that the reasons were not submitted, the order imposing penalty of Rs 25,000 and disciplinary proceedings against Secretary of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa could not have been ordered," the bench noted in its order.

Further, the bench noted that the Secretary had given an explanation for not complying with the order citing bereavement in his family, however, the CIC 'ignored' the same.

"The CIC did not consider this issue. However, before ordering any disciplinary enquiry or penalty, care has to be taken to ascertain whether defaults were intentional and Wilful. The explanation offered has to be considered. We therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order," the bench said while quashing the order passed by the CIC on September 10, 2017.

Background:

According to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, one Paras Jain, a litigant had filed a complaint against advocate Shashank Thatte and two others, with the BCMG. He then filed an application under the RTI in March 2011 before the BCMG asking it to furnish details of the total number of disciplinary enquiries initiated against advocates from 2000 till March 2011. He further sought details on the status of his complaint against Thatte and also the reasons for the delay as such in deciding the said disciplinary enquiry.

The BCMG then responded to Jain's plea with a letter stating that the information sought by him was vague and as far as reasons for the delay are concerned, the Secretary in its letter stated that 'there cannot be any reason for the delay and that the matter would be decided as and when it is taken on board.'

Taking exception to this order, Jain filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which dismissed his plea. He then moved the CIC seeking a relief and the CIC then passed an order on May 17, 2016 and a subsequent one on July 27, 2017 directing the BCMG to provide the information as sought by Jain. However, by a detailed order on September 18, 2017, the CIC noted the 'continued non-compliance' of its earlier order and also the absence of the Secretary from the hearing and sending his clerk to attend the proceedings. It therefore, noted that there has been a delay of more than 100 days in providing the requisite information to Jain and therefore, imposed costs of Rs 25,000 and also ordered an enquiry against the Secretary of the BCMG for not obeying its order.  

Case title: Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa vs Central Information Commission (WP No. (L) 2717 of 2017)

Click Here To Read/Download Order