CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00265
Dated, the 19th January, 2010.
Appellant : Shri N.K. Bhasin
Respondents : The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
This matter was heard on 04.01.2010 in the presence of the
appellant represented by his Counsel, Shri S.K.Khurana and the
respondents represented by the CPIO, Shri V. Sagar.
2. Appellant’s RTI-application dated 21.08.2007 was in respect of
the detailed verbatim proceedings of the Council of ICAI in the matter
of complaint by DGM, Bank of India [Reference No.25-CA(88)/2002].
3. CPIO provided a reply on 17.09.2007, in which the final decision
of the Council was communicated to the appellant, but not the
verbatim proceedings.
4. Appellate Authority, in his order dated 12.11.2007, upheld the
CPIO’s decision.
5. Initially, when this matter was heard by the Commission on
16.07.2008, a direction was issued to the respondents to file their
written-submissions as well as the appellant to file the counter, if any,
for Commission to process this matter further.
6. Accordingly, CPIO filed his comments on 14.08.2008 and appellant
his counter on 29.08.2008.
7. The main-point brought out by the respondents is that ICAI
functions under an Act of Parliament and the regulations framed under
the said Act specifically mention the steps to be followed at every stage
as well as the information to be communicated to the parties concerned
to any complaint which the ICAI Council may be dealing with. These
regulations require the Council to specify / intimate only the
prima-facie opinion to the parties and not the grounds on which such
opinion is formed. No hearing is provided to the parties at the time of
forming of the prima-facie opinion by the Council. The findings of the
Council are also communicated to the parties. It is, therefore, the
AT-19012010-03.doc
Page 1 of 3
submission of the respondents that their statute itself makes a
difference between prima-facie opinion stage and the final stage and
has provided for the appropriate information to be given to the parties
at their respective stages. The application of the present applicant was
dealt with under those provisions.
8. It is the appellant’s submission that the information he has sought
was in a case which has already concluded and been closed. It is his
case that the information requested by him should be disclosed to him
“blocking out such portions of the document as would attract
exemption under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005…” and
the requested information could not impede any process of
investigation since no process is currently on.
9. Respondents were specifically asked to state as to what objection
could they have to disclosure of the requested information to the
appellant, especially when the matter is acknowledgedly a closed one
and no investigation or enquiry is pending. They made reference to the
ICAI Act and the regulations and stated that they were disinclined to
provide to the appellant any documentation other than what the ICAI
Act and regulations entitled him to.
10. On consideration of both submissions, it is my view that
respondents had not been able to specifically state as to how the
requested information could be barred from disclosure especially as no
investigation to which it might relate is current. That excludes the
purview of exemption-Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. I do not see how
Section 8(1)(g) or Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act would be applicable in
the present case. Appellant has himself suggested that should the
respondents consider parts of the disclosed information sensitive in
terms of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, they should be willing to block it
out/sever it by invoking the provisions of Section 10(1) of the RTI Act
and disclose the information to the appellant.
11. I find myself in agreement with the submissions of the appellant.
I do not see how any of the exemption-Sections of the RTI Act would
apply to the present information as requested by the appellant
especially because this information pertains to an enquiry/investigation
which is already over and the matter stands closed. There is merit also
in appellant’s submission that respondents should sever under Section
10(1) such portions of the information which they might consider
sensitive in terms of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
AT-19012010-03.doc
Page 2 of 3
12. Respondents’ pleading that their disclosure of information was
conditioned only by the provisions of the ICAI Act and the regulations
and could not be decided under the RTI Act, cannot be accepted in view
of Section 22 of the RTI Act (override Section).
13. In view of the above, it is directed that the requested information
shall be disclosed to the appellant by the respondents/CPIO within two
weeks of the receipt of this order. Respondents/CPIO may sever from
the disclosed information such portions, which according to them, was
sensitive and was likely to attract any of the provisions of the
exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
14. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
15. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-19012010-03.doc
Page 3 of 3