Understanding Proactive Disclosure Through a Case Involving the Bar Council of India
One of the strongest features of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is Section 4, which mandates proactive disclosure public authority. Instead of waiting for citizens to file RTI applications, the law requires government bodies and statutory authorities to publish key information on their websites and in other accessible formats.
But what can you do if a public authority fails to comply with Section 4?
Can you use the RTI Act to compel them to update their website, publish rules, or disclose organisational details?
A recent case involving the Bar Council of India (BCI) provides a clear and practical example of how citizens can invoke the RTI Act to enforce proactive disclosure obligations.
Background: RTI Request Filed to Verify Section 4 Compliance
An appellant filed an RTI application before the Bar Council of India seeking information about BCI’s compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded with a point-wise reply.
Not satisfied, the appellant approached the Central Information Commission (CIC).
He argued that:
- He wanted clear information on the time limits for compliance with Section 4.
- The BCI website should contain information in Hindi, as required under Section 4(4), which emphasises accessibility in local languages.
- The Bar Council should also publish an RTI-specific email ID and the status of RTI applications and appeals on its website.
The Bar Council responded that:
- All necessary information had already been uploaded or was in the process of being updated.
- Information is normally provided in English but the Council responds in Hindi when specifically requested.
CIC Proceedings: What the Commission Examined
During the hearing, the CIC evaluated two key issues:
1. Whether the Bar Council had fulfilled its statutory duty under Section 4(1)(b)
Section 4(1)(b) requires every public authority to proactively publish 17 categories of information, including:
- Organisation structure
- Powers and duties of employees
- Rules, manuals and regulations
- Budget allocations
- Directory of officers
- Norms of decision-making
- Details of concessions, authorisations, subsidies
- Information available in electronic form
- Names and details of PIOs
These disclosures must be updated every year and were supposed to be published within 120 days of the RTI Act coming into force.
2. Whether the Bar Council should publish information in Hindi
Section 4(4) stresses accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and the use of local languages whenever required.
CIC’s Decision: Mandatory Compliance Cannot Be Taken Lightly
The Central Information Commission held that compliance with Section 4(1)(b) is a statutory obligation. Public authorities cannot treat proactive disclosure casually or delay it indefinitely.
The CIC directed the Bar Council of India to:
- Fully comply with Section 4(1)(b) and publish all mandatory information on its website.
- Submit a compliance report to the Commission.
- For information in Hindi and web-related improvements, the BCI must consider the request based on:
- Government policy
- Cost-effectiveness
- The most effective method of communication
What Citizens Can Learn: Using RTI to Enforce Proactive Disclosure
This case demonstrates a powerful but often under-used aspect of the RTI Act:
You can file an RTI application to check whether a public authority has complied with its obligations under Section 4.
If the authority has not uploaded required information, you can:
- Seek details of why the Section 4 disclosures are incomplete
- Request updates to the website
- Demand publication of missing manuals, rules, or directories
- Ask for information to be made available in regional languages
- Utilize CIC appeals to compel compliance
The Bar Council case shows that the CIC takes Section 4 obligations seriously and will issue directions where authorities fail to proactively disclose mandatory information.
Conclusion
Section 4 of the RTI Act was designed to reduce the burden of RTI applications regular, automatic publication of important information. When authorities ignore this duty, citizens have the right to question them using RTI.
Through this case involving the Bar Council of India, it is clear that:
- Public authorities cannot evade proactive disclosure
- CIC can order time-bound compliance
- Citizens can effectively use RTI to improve transparency in institutions
This case stands as a practical example of how RTI can be used not just to obtain information, but to strengthen transparency mechanisms across public bodies.
