t 10-13 t'11.P.(C) !os1884 11875, 13173 of 2009 & 4(163 of 2010 IN THE HIGI{ COURT OF DEI,HI AT NEW DELHI !Y.P.(O 10384/2009 & CM 9019/2009(stav) THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA Through: Mr. Ramj i srinivas-,' ir. TitJt"rT: with Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal, Mr. ZeyatI Haque and Mr. Pukit Agarwal, Advocates. versus MUKESH R. SHAH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Amicus Curiae for Respondent. W.P.(C) 11875/2009 & CM 12003/2009(stay) THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA Through: Mr. RamJi Srinivas*,'ir. Ti*T:: with Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal, Mr. Zeyaul Haque and Mr. Pukit Agarwal, Advocates. VETSUS MUKESH R. SHAH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Amicns Curiae for Respondent. W.P.(O 13173/2009 & CM 14308/2009(stay) THE INSTITLITE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA Through: Mr. Ramji Srinivas*,' ir. fitJ:?:: with Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal, Mr. Zeyaul Flaque and Mr. Pukit Agarwal, Advocates. VETSUS V.S. KARJINNI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli. Advocate INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA Tlrough : Mr. Ramj i Srinivas*, S;.' rl;i'i:"rT' with Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal, Mr. Zeyaul Haque and Mr. Pllkit Agarwal, Advocates. Page 1 of 5 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified versLls NK BIIASIN Through: Mr. Kunal Tandon, CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ..... Respondent Advocate. " ORDER 01,.12.2010 l. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ('ICAI'), the Petitioner in all these four petitions is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Central Information Commission ('CIC') directing discloswe of inforrnation to the respective Respondents arising out of the disciplinary proceedings against each of them. 2. In W.P.(C) No. 103-!4 of 2009 by the impugned order dated 17ft April 200g,the ICAI tras been directed to furnish to the Respondent Mrkesh R. Shah not only the records of the proceedings of tire Council which took its decision in the disciplinary proceedings against hirn but "the file notings in respect of the proceedings of the disciplinary case and other related issues". The ICAI was permitted to invoke Section 10(1) of the Right to Information Act,2005 ('RTI Act') and withhold the identity of the Council's members who contributed to the deliberations in the said meeting. 3. In W.P.(C) No. 11875 of 2009 by the impugned order dated 6th July 2009, the CIC has directed the ICAI to disclose to the Respondent "the entire records pertaining to the disciplinary action" against him, including the notesheets of the disciplinary proceedings. 4. In W.P.(C) No. 13173 of 2009, the CIC has, by its impugned order dated W.P.(C) Nos.10384,11875,13173 of 2009 & 4063 of 2010 Page 2 of 5 13ft July 2009 directed the Central Public Information Officer ('CPIO') of the ICAI to furnish to the Respondent the records of discussion of the meeting of the Council members of the ICAI within 15 days. 5. h W.P.(C) No. 4063 of 2010, the CIC has, by the impugned order dated 19ft January 2010 directed the CPIO of the ICAI to disclose to the Respondent the detailed verbatim proceedings of the Council of ICAI in a complaint against the Respondent by the Deputy General Manager (DGM), Bank of India, after severing such portions which according to the ICAI were sensitive and likely to atfract exemption under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 6. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, the learned Senior counsel, appearing for the Petitioner ICAI submitted that while the ICAI was not averse'to disclosing the information contained in the record of the disciplinary proceedings of the ICAI, which in effect were the authenticated minutes of the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Council, the ICAI had difficulty in disclosing the verbatim transcripts of the deliberations that took place at the meetings either of the Disciplinary Committee or the Council of the ICAL Such transcripts may ultimately not have got reflected in the signed minutes of the proceedings of either body and, therefore, was not part of the offlcial 'record of proceedings'. He submitted that what was relevant to be looked into as constituting the 'record' of either the Disciplinary Committee or the Council was the signed minutes of their proceedings. 7. Mr. Sunil Fernandes, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of WP.(C) Nos.10384, 11875, 13173 of 2009 & 4063 of 2010 Page 3 of 5 the Respondent Mr. Mukesh R. Shah in W.P.(C) 10334 and 11875 of 2009, Mr. Anand M. Sanjay Nuli, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent V.S. Karjinni and Mr. Kunal Tandon, the learned counsel appearing for N.K. Bhasin submitted that as long as the proceedings concerning each of the Respondents is made available to them, and it constituted the authenticated record of the disciplinary proceedings against each of them, they would be satisfied. 8. It appears to this Court that for the pllrposes of the RTI Act the inforrnation which can be said to be relevant is thus available with the ICAI in the course of the disciplinary proceedings in the form of the authenticated minutes of the proceedings of either the Disciplinary Committee and or the Council. The reason for this is that whatever may be the deliberations of members at the meetings of the Disciplinary Committee or the Council of the ICAI, it is the final authenticated minutes of the proceedings of each of the bodies, signed by all the attending rnembers that can be said to be the 'record of the proceedings' of either body. This is what constitutes the material on the basis of which the decisions have been taken either by the Disciplinary and/or the Council. The verbatim recording of the remarks made by the members in the course of the deliberations as noted by the stenographers cannot constitute the 'record of prooeedings'. Where a particular member feels that a view expressed by her or hirn at the meeting has not been reflected in the minntes, then such member can add a note of dissent or seek correction of the minutes. 9. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders of the CIC are modified, WP.(C) Nos.10384, 11875, 13173 of 2009 & 4063 of 2010 Page 4 of 5 and it is directed that the Petitioner ICAI will disclose to each of the Respondents the authenticated minutes of the meetings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Council in each of the disciplinary cases concerning the Respondents within a period of four weeks from today. The ICAI can in terms of Section 10(1) RTI Act, withhold the identity of the individual members whose views may be recorded in such minutes. 10. The writ petitions and applications are disposed of in the above terms. 1 1. Order be given dasti to the cotursel or the parties. S. MURALIDHAR. J. DECEMBER 01,2O1O akg l,l/.P.(C) Nos.10384, 11875, 13173 of 2009 & 4063 of 2010 krye 5 of 5