Sanjeev Sachdeva JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
1. The petitioner impugns orders dated 11.08.2015 and 01.12.2015 passed by the Central Information Commission directing that the details sought by respondent no. 2 be put in public domain voluntarily as per Section 4(1) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Further, the Commission by order dated 11.08.2015 issued a show cause notice to the PIO as to why the penalty be not imposed for denying the information. By impugned order dated 01.12.2015, another opportunity was granted to CPIO to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for not providing the information and not complying with the commission's order of uploading the entire information on the website.
2. The respondent no. 2 by her application (filed on 02.03.2015) under the Act, had inter-alia, sought the following information:-
" 1. Please supply me certified copies of all the minutes of all full house meetings of Bard Council of Delhi held during the period 01.04.2010 till date.
2. Please give information regarding the sources of income of Bar Council of Delhi and total amount received from different sources during the period 01.04.2010 till date.
3. Please give information regarding the total accumulations of funds existing with Bar Council of Delhi as on date i.e. 02.03.2015."
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the information with regard to the minutes of full house meetings of the Bar Council of Delhi contained confidential and personal information of third parties. It is contended that all decisions taken by Bar Council in the full house meetings cannot be disclosed under the Act. The Bar Council conducts disciplinary proceedings under the Advocates Act, 1961 against the Advocates and deals with several complaints from time to time. The disciplinary proceedings pertain to third parties and may contain third party information, disclosure of which, is exempted under the Act. Further, Bar Council deals with the application received from various Advocates seeking monetary help on basis of their health conditions. It is submitted that the said minutes also contained personal information about the Advocates who seek financial aid on medical grounds and disclosure of such information is also exempted under the Act.
4. It is further submitted that in so far as the information relating to accounts is concerned, whatever information was available with the petitioner, the petitioner immediately furnished the same vide its reply dated 01.04.2015 to the application which was received on 02.03.2015. It was also mentioned in the said reply that as an audit was being conducted and it was not possible to immediately supply the complete financial information to respondent no. 2 pursuant to the application.
5. None appears for the respondent No. 2. None was present on 18.03.2016, 11.07.2016 and 21.11.2016. Though respondent no. 2 was earlier represented by a counsel, none has been appearing for the said respondents for the last several dates and even today. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that, under orders of this court, the entire information has already been furnished to respondent no. 2.
6. By the impugned order, the CIC held that the minutes of the full house of the Bar Council should be disclosed and put in public domain and also on the website of the Bar Council. Perusal of the queries made in the application filed by respondent no. 2 show that what is sought is disclosure of the minutes of all meetings of Bar Council. It is this information which has been directed to be put in public domain. The CIC, clearly fell in error in issuing the direction of putting all such information in public domain.
7. The minutes of the full house of the Bar Council, would ........