CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)

Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)

Information Commissioner

CIC/SA/A/2015/001262
CIC/SA/A/2015/001263
CIC/SA/A/2015/001264
CIC/SA/A/2015/001265

(Video Conference – Rewari,Punchkula)

Important Dates:

RTI Application: 762014 1st Appeal: 1782014 2nd Appeal: 2562015

Show cause issued Hearing: 14032016 Decision: 17032016

Parties Present:

The appellant is present. The Public Authority is not represented.

FACTS:

2. The appellant is a public spirited person working to provide information to the needy and

questioning unreasonable tendencies in the public authorities. He is seeking information regarding the

number of complaints against the advocates under section 35 of the Advocates Act for the past 10 years,

how many cases were disposed of, number of advocates alleged to have committed misconduct or

unethical conduct as provisions of Advocates Act, number and percentage of complaints disposed of

within one year of the lodging of the complaint, etc.

Page 1
Having received no information from the Public Authority, the appellant approached the Commission

after exhausting the first appeal.

DECISION:

3. Heard the submissions. The appellant wants information regarding the number of complaints

against the advocates, how many cases were disposed of, number of advocates who had violated the

provisions of Advocates Act, number and percentage of complaints disposed of within a year of the

lodging of the complaint, etc. practising/registered with the Bar Associations located at Rewari,

Faridabad, Punchkula and Gurgaon, for at least 3 years and how many disciplinary cases against the

advocates were sent to the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana, at Chandigarh by the respective Bar

Associations located at Rewari, Faridabad, Punchkula and Gurgaon. The appellant complained that he

was not provided with the required information and his first appeals were also not heard by the FAA.

4. The Bar Council is a statutory body constituted under Advocates Act 1961, to protect ethical

standards of Advocates and admonish the members for misconduct. The information about this core

function of Bar Council cannot be denied to the appellant as it does not attract any exemption under RTI

Act.

Section 6 of Advocates Act 1961 says:

Functions of State Bar Councils. — (1) The functions of a State Bar Council shall be— (a) to
admit persons as advocates on its roll; (b) to prepare and maintain such roll; (c) to entertain
and determine cases of misconduct against advocates on its roll; (d) to safeguard the rights,
privileges and interests of advocates on its roll; 1[(dd) to promote the growth of Bar
Associations for the purposes of effective implementation of the welfare schemes referred to
in clause (a) of subsection
 (2) of this section clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 7;]

CHAPTER V CONDUCT OF ADVOCATES, in section 35 of Advocates Act deals with:

(1) Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe that
any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the
case for disposal to its disciplinary committee. (1A) The State Bar Council may, either of its
own motion or on application made to it by any person interested, withdraw a proceeding
pending before its disciplinary committee and direct the inquiry to be made by any other
disciplinary committee of that State Bar Council. (2) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar
Council shall fix a date for the hearing of the case and shall cause a notice thereof to be given to
the advocate concerned and to the AdvocateGeneral of the State. (3) The disciplinary committee
of a State Bar Council after giving the advocate concerned and the AdvocateGeneral an
opportunity of being heard, may make any of the following orders, namely:— (a) dismiss the
complaint or, where the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the State Bar Council,
direct that the proceedings be filed; (b) reprimand the advocate; (c) suspend the advocate from
practice for such period as it may deem fit;
(d) remove the name of the advocate from the State roll of advocates. (4) Where an advocate is
suspended from practice under clause (c) of subsection (3), he shall, during the period of
suspension, be debarred from practising in any court or before any authority or person in India.
(5) Where any notice is issued to the AdvocateGeneral under subsection (2), the Advocate-
General may appear before the 1 Inserted by Act 60 of 1973 w.e.f. 31.01.1974. The words “, if
it does not summarily reject the complaint,” omitted by Act 60 of 1973
w.e.f. 31.01.1974. Disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council either in person or through
any advocate appearing on his behalf. Explanation.—In this section, section 37 and
 section 38, the expressions “AdvocateGeneral” and Advocate General of the State” shall, in
relation to the Union territory of Delhi, mean the Additional Solicitor General of India.

Directions

5. The Commission directs the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh to furnish the

information sought. The action taken under Section 35 by the Bar Council should be published under

Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act on their own without anybody need to see it.

6. The Complaints also might have emanated from district bar associations and reach the Bar

Council of the State. Though Bar Associations are different from Bar Councils, they are also constituted

under a law made by Parliament, i.e., the Advocates Act, 1961. They too have a duty to inform the

people about their activities. The Commission, therefore, directs the Presidents of the Bar Associations

at Rewari, Faridabad, Punchkula and Gurgaon, to provide copies of complaints against, if any, forwarded

by them to the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

7. The Commission also directs the FAA/Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh to show

cause why disciplinary action cannot be recommended against him for not taking up the first appeal of

the appellant.

8. All the directions shall be complied with, and explanations shall reach within 21 days from the

date of receipt of this order.

9. The Commission orders accordingly to the PRESIDENTS of following BAR COUNSILS to provide
information so demanded:-
 1. The PIO under the RTI Act/President of the Association

DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, District Courts,

Rewari123401 Haryana State

2. The PIO under the RTI Act/President of the Association

DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, District Courts,

Faridabad121001 Haryana State

3. The PIO under the RTI Act/President of the Association

DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, District Courts,

Punchkula134101 Haryana State

4. The PIO under the RTI Act/President of the Association

DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, District Courts,

Gurgaon122001 Haryana State

5. The First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act

BAR COUNCIL OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Law Bhawan, Dakshin Marg, Sector 37A, Chandigarh

PIN: 160017
 Personal Observation

I’m satisfied with the decision given by the commission, as the information is not that confidential
one, and it does not harm the peace of society nor it disturbs the confidentiality of the BAR
COUNSILS.

1. It should be made public the records of advocates who practice in certain courts, so that people
should know about behavior and conduct of advocates which makes easy to choose a good
advocate for their case.

2. To maintain discipline in the court.

3. To regularize the conduct of advocates with colleagues, opposite counsil, with their clients, staff
of court and conduct with chairpersons and judges.

4. To blacklist advocates who are regular and habitual offenders of the decorum of the court place.

5. Good for growth of Bar Counsels.

CASE BRIEF SUBMITTED BY-