My sister filed Writ Petition No.6906 of 2022, dated 24.03.2022, assailing an order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission who disposed her appeal KIC/7733/APL/2020 without providing her with documents concerning G.A.Srikante Gowda. My sister filed this in the High Court of Karnataka. Read on to know more about G.A.Srikante Gowda, his documents and the refusal of Karnataka State Bar Council to provide us his law degree marks cards here.
| PETITIONER | RESPONDENTS |
|---|---|
| SHILPA MUNIKEMPANNA | 1. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION |
| 2. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL | |
| 3. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL |
Background of Writ Petition No.6906/2022
On 05.12.2019 my sister filed an application with Karnataka State Bar Council [KSBC] under the Right to Information Act. Through this she was seeking certain documents concerning G.A.Srikante Gowda, an advocate practicing in the High Court of Karnataka. In January of 2020 she received the PIO, KSBC’s refusal regarding certain documents. Thereafter, KSBC did not respond to the First Appeal. Hence, in June of 2020, my sister filed a Second Appeal in front of the Karnataka Information Commission numbered as KIC/7733/APL/2020.
Through the course of the second appeal the PIO, KSBC provided certain information but not the entire information asked for. Additionally they took the legally untenable plea of destruction of records of all advocates of Karnataka upto the year 2010. KSBC did not submit any proof regarding the same. Moreover there was no explanation regarding the delay in providing information.
Beginnings of Writ Petition No.6906/2022
Karnataka Information Commission did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law through the Right to Information Act, 2005. KIC did not demand the required information. Moreover KSBC did not provide any reasonable cause for delay. KIC did not issue any warnings or impose penalties that was incumbent on it under the law to do so. Instead KIC disposed off my sister’s second appeal on 24.12.2021 on the premise that she was satisfied with the information received.
Hence my sister filed Writ Petition No.6906 of 2022 under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 24.12.2021. It also includes prayers to direct PIO and FAA, KSBC to provide her with the information requested.
Moreover there is a prayer seeking for a direction to compel Karnataka State Bar Council to comply with S.4(1)b under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This requires that all public authorities publish details of the RTI act and Officers appointed under it. The Karnataka State Bar Council, which is a public authority established under statutory law, cannot claim to be beyond the law and beyond accountability to the citizens of this country.
Writ Petition No.6906/22 assails the following Stand of Karnataka State Bar Council
Documents of G.A.Srikante Gowda that PIO, KSBC refused to certify stating that these documents were never in their possession
Why is the non-certification of the above documents problematic?
Karnataka State Bar Council did not certify the above documents because it was allegedly never in their possession. This is not a legally tenable argument under the Right to Information Act. Moreover KSBC offered the explanation that according to its’ Resolution No.140/19 they had destroyed all enrollment application forms and accompanying documents of all advocates upto 2010! Which is also not legally tenable as ruled in Shri. Ashok Kr. Dixit v. Delhi Technological University, GNCTD, Delhi, 2014.
A look at the Supreme Court orders in Ajayinder Sangwan & Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. show that there was a mandate to collect all degree certificates of all advocates for verification.
Any “reasonable man” can apply “lay” logic to understand what is happening here.
Threats by Thugs Before First Hearing on Second Appeal
Thugs turned up at our house threatening us physically on 28.03.2022. This was the night before the first hearing of the second appeal in front of the Karnataka Information Commission. They disappeared when I called the Police Control Room seeking help. This was conveyed to the Karnataka Information Commission. The State Information Commissioner consequently issued a stern warning to KSBC which we are grateful for. Since this has not been repeated again.
Problems in Writ Petition No.6906/2022 in High Court of Karnataka
Scrutiny Objections
Scrutiny objections complied with by 13.04.2022. The court office subsequently passed an order, dated 25.04.2022, acknowledging compliance and directed listing of Writ Petition for preliminary hearing. Instead of being listed in front of a Bench the Writ Petition was posted to Registrar (Protocol & Hospitality) on 11.08.2023. This was for non-compliance of scrutiny objections even though they were all complied with. Moreover my sister had no notice of this posting.
LAW
Rule 10 Chapter VIII The High Court of Karnataka Rules 1959:
10. Every Writ Petition as early as possible after it has been admitted to register, shall be posted before the appropriate Bench for preliminary orders as to issue of notice.
Listing of the Writ Petition before a Bench
In April 2023 my sister moved a mention memo in front of the Bench hearing GM-RES matters. It was not listed. This is even though the then Court Master informed my sister that it would be listed the next day.
It was listed on 15.11.2023. 19 months after it was filed!
My sister filed an application seeking an enquiry and disciplinary action against those found responsible for the non-listing. It is yet to be heard. It has not yet been put up.
LAW
Rule 10(1) Chapter XV The High Court of Karnataka Rules 1959:
10.(1) Interlocutory Applications shall be posted for preliminary or interim orders ordinarily within a week of their presentation.