Asking 'Reasons for Delay' Not 'Information' Under S.2(f) RTI Act; CIC Penalty Invalid: Bombay High Court - 2025-05-08

Bombay High Court: "Reasons for Delay" Not "Information" Under RTI Act; CIC Penalty on Bar Council Quashed

Mumbai, India – The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, has quashed an order by the Central Information Commission (CIC) that imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and recommended disciplinary action. The High Court bench, comprising Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain , held that seeking "reasons for delay" in a disciplinary inquiry does not fall within the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The judgment, dated October 17, 2024, set aside the CIC's "adjunct" order of September 18, 2017, which found the Bar Council non-compliant with earlier directives to provide complete information.

Case Background

The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (the petitioner) challenged the CIC's order, which stemmed from an RTI application filed by the second respondent on March 11, 2013. The applicant had sought several pieces of information, including: * A list of disciplinary cases filed and pending, with reasons for delay. * Particulars of allotment and disposal of preliminary enquiries by each Disciplinary Committee member. * Any prescribed limitation period for disposing of disciplinary cases under preliminary enquiry. * Crucially, the reasons for a three-year delay in Preliminary Case No. 163 of 2011, which was filed by the applicant himself.

The CIC, noting a delay of over 100 days in partially providing information and the non-furnishing of reasons for the delay in the applicant's specific case, imposed the penalty and recommended disciplinary action against the Bar Council's CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Arguments Presented

The Petitioner (Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa) , represented by Mr. Yogendra Rajgor , argued that: * Most of the information requested had been furnished. * The "reasons for delay" in a specific preliminary enquiry could not be sought under the RTI Act, as they do not constitute "information" as defined. * Any delay in providing other information was explained, including a bereavement that prevented the Secretary (CPIO) from attending a hearing. This explanation was allegedly not adequately considered by the CIC.

The Second Respondent (RTI Applicant) , in his affidavit, contended that: * The CIC was within its jurisdiction, as clarifications were sought due to incomplete information. * Procedural safeguards under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act were followed before imposing the penalty. * The delay in furnishing information was not properly explained, justifying the penalty.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court meticulously examined the information sought and the provisions of the RTI Act.

On Furnishing of Information: The Court noted that information regarding points (a) (list of disciplinary cases) and (b) (particulars of allotment) had been furnished. Regarding point (c) (limitation period), the Bar Council had informed the applicant that no such period was prescribed at the time, though the Supreme Court has recently laid down timelines in K. Anjinappa vs. K.C. Krishna Reddy and Anr.

"Reasons for Delay" Not "Information": The central issue revolved around point (d) – the demand for reasons for the three-year delay in the applicant's preliminary enquiry. The Court sided with the petitioner, stating: > "Regards information under (d), we agree with Mr Rajgor that under the provisions of the RTI Act, there was no question of furnishing any reasons for the delay in the preliminary enquiry."

The Court elaborated, referencing Section 2(f) of the RTI Act , which defines "information" as: > "any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which a public authority can access under any other law for the time being in force."

The bench concluded: > "Therefore, the reasons for the alleged delay would not constitute “information” as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."

The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Others, [(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1] , which established that an RTI applicant can obtain existing and accessible information but cannot seek "information as to why and for what reasons the Judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion."

The High Court observed: > "The reasons, in many cases, would involve a subjective element. There may be disagreements on whether something constitutes reasons or, in any case, justifiable reasons. Therefore, the 2nd respondent could not have asked for reasons for the 3-year delay... In any event, he could have always applied for roznama and then tried to ascertain reasons..."

Penalty and Disciplinary Action Deemed Unjustified: Given that "reasons for delay" are not "information" under the Act, the Court found the penalty and disciplinary proceedings based on their non-provision to be unsustainable.

Furthermore, the Court found the CPIO's explanation for absence from a CIC hearing (due to bereavement) to be adequate and criticized the CIC for not considering it properly: > "Before any orders imposing penalties or ordering disciplinary proceedings are issued, care must be taken to ascertain whether defaults were intentional and willful. The explanation offered must be at least considered. In all such matters, there is bound to be some lapse here and there. However, every lapse does not justify the imposition of penalties and directions for disciplinary proceedings."

Final Decision

The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the CIC's "adjunct" order dated September 18, 2017. The rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.

This judgment reiterates an important distinction under the RTI Act: while citizens have the right to access existing material information held by public authorities, the Act cannot be used as a tool to demand explanations or justifications for actions or delays, especially when such "reasons" are not already part of a pre-existing record. It also underscores the need for information commissions to judiciously apply penal provisions, considering the intent and explanations provided by CPIOs.