RTI Appeal Denied: Disclosure of Insolvency Professionals' Disciplinary Info Restricted

The appeal against the RTI order regarding disclosure of information on insolvency professionals under disciplinary proceedings was rejected. The Board's procedures for preventing the appointment of IPs under investigation were deemed sufficient, and disclosing such information was found to impede the investigation process and harm professional reputations. The appeal was dismissed, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues involved:
- Appeal against RTI order regarding disclosure of information on insolvency professionals under disciplinary proceedings

Analysis:
1. RTI Request and Response:
- Mr. Nipun Singhvi appealed against the CPIO's decision to not disclose the list of insolvency professionals under disciplinary proceedings. The CPIO cited Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, stating that sharing such information could impede the prosecution and adjudication process.

2. Appellant's Contention:
- Mr. Singhvi argued that the CPIO's response was unsatisfactory and against the interest of stakeholders. He highlighted the circular stating that IPs under disciplinary proceedings should not accept new assignments.

3. Board's Examination:
- The Board conducts inspection and investigation of IPs in three stages: inspection, show-cause notice, and Disciplinary Committee review. The concern was raised that IPs under investigation might be appointed as IRPs, affecting the legal process.

4. Preventing Appointment of IPs under Disciplinary Proceedings:
- The Adjudicating Authority appoints IRPs after ensuring no pending disciplinary proceedings. IPs must submit a consent form certifying no ongoing investigations. The Board maintains a panel of clear IPs for appointments and updates a list of IPs with pending proceedings on its website.

5. Legal Provisions and Precedents:
- Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts information that could impede investigations or prosecutions. Quasi-judicial disciplinary proceedings are sensitive, and disclosing names could harm IPs' reputations and benefit competitors.

6. Judgment and Conclusion:
- Disclosing names of IPs under disciplinary proceedings could impede the investigation process and harm their professional standing. The Board's existing checks and procedures adequately address concerns about appointments. Therefore, the appeal for disclosure was rejected, and the matter was disposed of.

---