RTI disclosure limits for Bar Council minutes upheld against blanket public-domain directions and penalty action

The Delhi HC held that a blanket direction to upload all minutes of the Bar Council's full house meetings and related RTI material was unsustainable because the records could include disciplinary, third-party, personal, and fiduciary information, and the cited provisions of the Advocates Act did not justify universal disclosure; the direction was quashed. The Court also held that show cause proceedings against the CPIO for alleged delay could not stand where the reply was within the statutory period and the request sought voluminous records over several years, with available information supplied; the penalty proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the minutes of the full house meetings of the Bar Council and the related information sought under the Right to Information Act could be directed to be placed in the public domain and on the website of the Bar Council; (ii) whether the show cause proceedings initiated against the CPIO for alleged delay in furnishing information were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the minutes of the full house meetings of the Bar Council and the related information sought under the Right to Information Act could be directed to be placed in the public domain and on the website of the Bar Council.

Analysis: The information sought included minutes of meetings covering disciplinary matters, confidential issues concerning advocates, and requests for financial assistance on medical grounds. Such material could contain third party information, personal information, and information received in a fiduciary capacity. Although section 6 and section 36 of the Advocates Act, 1961 contemplate functions and disciplinary powers of the Bar Council, and section 12 provides for publication of audited accounts, those provisions did not justify a blanket direction to disclose all minutes in public domain. The Court also noted that the impugned order recorded no adequate reasons for the direction to upload the entire material on the website.

Conclusion: The blanket direction to place all minutes and related material in the public domain was unsustainable and was quashed.

Issue (ii): whether the show cause proceedings initiated against the CPIO for alleged delay in furnishing information were sustainable.

Analysis: The CPIO had replied within the statutory period and had supplied whatever information was available. The request was for general and voluminous records spanning about five years, and the Court accepted that such a demand could not justify penalty proceedings on the facts. The Court found no basis for the show cause action once the response and the nature of the request were considered.

Conclusion: The show cause proceedings for delay were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders and the consequential penalty proceedings were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A blanket direction under the Right to Information Act to disclose all minutes of a statutory body's meetings is impermissible where the records may contain exempt personal, third party, or fiduciary information, and penalty proceedings cannot be sustained when the public authority has responded within time to a voluminous request and supplied available information.

---