Information about enrolled persons as an Advocate by Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana from the Manav Bharti University, Solan - CIC warned the PIO to ensure that written submissions be filed prior to the hearing incorporating the relevant reply provided

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.03.2020 seeking the following information:

1. Kindly supply me the list of enrolled persons as an Advocate who is having L.L.B AND B.A. L.L.B Degrees from MANAV BHARTI UNIVERSITY, SOLAN, HIMACHAL PAEDESH from session 2012(LLB) , 2014 (B.A. LLB) onwards to 5 March 2020.

2. Kindly supply me the list of verifications which was done by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana from the Manav Bharti University, Solan, H.P., of those Advocates who is enrolled by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, at U.T, Chandigarh. (complete details).

3. Kindly supply me the list of Candidates who's degrees are enquired and found fake by said Bar Council, What action was taken by the Bar Council, was any case registered by the Bar Council against any candidate/ Lawyer or any Complaint / FIR lodged against Manav Bharti University, Solan, H.P., till the date.

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.04.2020. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Represented by Advocate Vishal through audio conference.

Respondent: Mahinder Singh, AS & CPIO present through audio conference.

The CPIO submitted that due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and disruption caused to the office administration, the RTI Application was received only on 07.06.2020 and the reply was provided to the Appellant on 07.08.2020.

The Rep. of the Appellant stated that although the reply has been received but the same is not satisfactory as only names of some advocates has been provided. He further stated that the information sought for is vital in the context of the fake degrees issued by the averred University and the registration of such degree holders with the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana. He also stated that they are in the process of having the matter investigated through the State CID.

Decision:

The Commission at the outset strictly warns the CPIO to ensure that as a matter of principle as per para 3 of the notice of hearing, he should file his written submissions prior to the hearing incorporating the relevant record of reply provided to the RTI Applications in the future.

Further, as regards the information sought for in the instant RTI Application, the Commission is not in a position to order any relief as the same seeks personal information of various third parties, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:

“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive…”

The arguments of the Appellant suggesting larger public interest in the disclosure of the information does not weigh in considering the strength of the material on record. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Vaishali v. Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana in File No: CIC/BCOIN/A/2020/123109, Date of Decision: 24/01/2022