‘Reasons for delay in deciding a case’ do not constitute ‘information’ under RTI Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Thursday held that “reasons for delay in taking a decision or disposing of a matter” cannot qualify as “information” as defined in the Right to Privacy Act. information (RTI) and that we cannot therefore ask for “reasons” in an RTI request. .

A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain has quashed an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) which had imposed a fee of Rs 25,000 on the secretary of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), for failing to furnish information on the “reasons for delay in decision” in a complaint filed by a litigant against a lawyer.

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, emails, opinions, advice, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, articles, samples, models , data held in any electronic medium. form and information relating to any private body accessible to a public authority under any other law then in force;

“Therefore, the reasons for the alleged delay could not constitute information within the meaning of the Act. In many cases, the reasons would be subjective. There may be disagreements as to whether something constitutes reasons or, in any case, justifiable reasons. Therefore, the defendant (plaintiff) could not have asked for the reasons for the 3-year delay in the decision of the preliminary investigation against the lawyer concerned,” the bench recorded its order, adopted on Thursday afternoon.

In any event, the judges considered, the litigant could always have requested the Roznama and then attempted to determine the reasons for the alleged delay in concluding the investigation.

“Therefore, on the ground that the reasons were not submitted, the order imposing fine of Rs 25,000 and disciplinary proceedings against the Secretary of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa could not have been ordered” , » noted the bench in its order.

Further, the bench noted that the secretary had given an explanation for not complying with the order citing his family’s bereavement, but the CIC “ignored” the same.

“The CIC has not considered this matter. However, before ordering a disciplinary investigation or sanction, it should be verified whether the breaches were intentional and deliberate. The proposed explanation must be taken into account. We cancel and put therefore aside the contested proceedings. » declared the bench in annulling the order adopted 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 RTI application in March 2011 with the BCMG, asking it to provide details of the total number of disciplinary investigations initiated against lawyers from 2000 to March 2011. He further requested details of the the status of his complaint against Thatte as well as the reasons for the delay itself in ruling on said disciplinary investigation.

The BCMG then responded to Jain’s request with a letter stating that the information sought by him was vague and that regarding the reasons for the delay, the secretary stated in his letter that “there can be no reason for the delay and that the matter would be decided as it was taken up.

Taking exception to this order, Jain filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which rejected his plea. He then asked the CIC to seek relief and the CIC subsequently issued an order on May 17, 2016, and then another on July 27, 2017, directing the BCMG to provide the information requested by Jain. However, by a detailed order dated September 18, 2017, the CIC noted the “continued non-compliance” of its earlier order as well as the absence of the secretary from the hearing and the dispatch of its registrar to attend the proceedings. It therefore noted that there was a delay of more than 100 days in providing the required information to Jain and hence imposed a fee of Rs 25,000 and also ordered an inquiry against the BCMG secretary for failing to did not obey his order.