Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, challenged an 'adjunct' order dated 18 September 2017 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had observed that the petitioner failed to comply with earlier orders dated 17 May 2016 and 27 July 2017 by not providing complete information. It imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000 on the CPIO (Secretary of the Bar Council) under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and recommended disciplinary action under Section 20(2). The second respondent, an applicant under the RTI Act, had sought information including reasons for a three-year delay in a preliminary enquiry in Case No. 163 of 2011. The petitioner furnished most information except the reasons for delay, contending that such reasons do not constitute 'information' under the RTI Act. The CIC, however, held that there was non-compliance and imposed the penalty. The Bombay High Court quashed the impugned order. It held that reasons for delay are not 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which covers only material already in existence. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer, which held that an applicant cannot seek reasons for a decision. The court also noted that the petitioner's secretary had explained the delay due to bereavement, which was not adequately considered. The court emphasized that before imposing penalty or recommending disciplinary action, the authority must find that the default was intentional and willful. Since the information sought under clause (d) was not 'information' under the RTI Act, there was no default in not furnishing it. The court set aside the impugned order and made the rule absolute without costs.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Definition of Information - Section 2(f) RTI Act - Reasons for delay not 'information' - The court held that reasons for delay in a preliminary enquiry do not fall within the definition of 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, as they are not material already in existence. The applicant cannot seek reasons for delay under the RTI Act. (Paras 13-15) B) Right to Information - Penalty - Section 20(1) RTI Act - Intentional and willful default required - The court held that before imposing penalty under Section 20(1), the authority must ascertain whether the default was intentional and willful. Mere delay without such finding does not justify penalty. (Para 18) C) Right to Information - Disciplinary Action - Section 20(2) RTI Act - Explanation must be considered - The court held that before recommending disciplinary action under Section 20(2), the explanation offered by the CPIO must be adequately considered. In this case, the explanation of bereavement was not properly considered. (Paras 17-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether reasons for delay in disposal of a preliminary enquiry constitute 'information' under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and whether penalty and disciplinary action could be imposed without finding intentional default.
Final Decision
The impugned 'adjunct' order dated 18 September 2017 is quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute without any cost orders.
Law Points
- Definition of information under Section 2(f) of RTI Act does not include reasons for delay
- Penalty under Section 20(1) requires intentional and willful default
- Disciplinary action under Section 20(2) requires proper consideration of explanation
