Whether
“Reason” is information ?
High Court comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain
on 17-10-2024 held that ‘reasons for delay in taking a decision or
deciding a case’ cannot qualify to be ‘information’ as defined under
Section 2(f) of the Right To Information (RTI) Act and thus, one cannot
ask ‘reasons’ in an RTI application.
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.
–
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.
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.’
Information Commission :–
Taking exception to this order,
Jain filed an appeal before the First 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.
The Bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and
Jitendra Jain refereed to definition of “information”
as provided under 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”;
On the premises of above definition, reason
for the alleged delay does not constitute definition of
information coming under Section 2(f) to qualify as information. —
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,”
passed on 17-10-2024. 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.
the Secretary had given an explanation for not complying with the order citing
bereavement in his family, however, the CIC ‘ignored’ the same.
this issue. However, before ordering any disciplinary enquiry or penalty, care
has to be taken to ascertain whether defaults were intentional and Willful. 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.
High Court “reason for delay” cannot be considered as
information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
By Pravat Giri , RTI Expert
