RAJENDER SINGH Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.

(2.) Respondent No. 4 has challenged the order passed by the PIO-cum-Secretary, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Chairman, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh. The appeal, however, met the same fate being dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The respondent No. 4 preferred appeal before the State Information Commissioner against the aforesaid order. The said appeal has been allowed vide order under challenge in this writ petition and the PIO-cum4 Secretary, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh has been directed to supply the sought for information to respondent No. 4 herein, free of costs.

(3.) Having gone through the record produced by learned Counsel representing the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh and learned Counsel on both sides, in our considered opinion, the information sought to be supplied by respondent No. 4 does not fall under any exempted category within the meaning of Section 8(j) of the Right to Information Act. Even if the information sought to be supplied is treated personal to the petitioner, the disclosure thereof is required in the larger public interest because the petitioner is a lawyer by profession and the public including respondent No. 4 has the right to know as to whether he is qualified lawyer or not. The information if supplied does not amount to invasion of the privacy of the petitioner. The information rather has direct nexus with the public at large because the petitioner is a lawyer by profession. Learned State Information Commissioner, therefore, has not committed any illegality or irregularity while allowing the application made by respondent No. 4 and directing the PIO-cum-Secretary, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh to supply the requisite information. It is further clarified that only the information as per record qua enrollment of the petitioner maintained in the Bar Council has to be supplied and not the certified copies of his degree/diploma etc. as the same are not required by the respondent No. 4 nor any public purpose is likely to be served by supplying the copies thereof.