CIC asks Finance Ministry, RBI To Publish Details of Loan Defaulters of over Rs50 Crore
Central information commissioner (CIC), Prof Sridhar Acharyulu has directed the finance ministry, the ministry of statistics & implementation and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to make public, the names of those bank loan defaulters whose unpaid loans amount to Rs50 crore and above.
 
This order is a sequel to the information sought by an RTI (Right to Information) applicant who was refused information by the central public information officer (CPIO) of the ministry of labour & employment. The RTI applicant had sought information on two issues. One was directly related to the labour & welfare ministry comprising information on employment guarantee schemes. The second related to the names of loan defaulters of Rs50 crore and above which the ministry has nothing to do with, but it was the duty of the CPIO to forward the RTI application to the relevant public authorities—in this case, the ministries of finance and of statistics and implementation and the RBI. 
 
As per the CIC’s observation in his order, records show that the CPIO did not forward the RTI application to the appropriate ministry, which is mandatory under the RTI Act.
 
Sandeep Singh Jadoun, the RTI applicant, sought the following information from the ministry of labour & employment (which included information related to loan defaulters as well as employment schemes):
 
  • Number of willful defaulters (those who are unwilling to pay despite having the capacity to do so) of loans of Rs50 crore and above, advanced by banks and other financial institutions; with or without guarantees;
  • The names of guarantors, details of loans such as dates of sanction and default and details of non-performing assets (NPA) accounts;
  • The cost and investment of the projects for employment generating schemes initiated by the Central government between 2005 and 2018.
  • List of failed projects and projects, which only existed on paper and were never introduced on the floor, with which the ministry of labour and employment (MoLE) is concerned. 
 
The CPIO declined to provide the information, stating that since records pertaining to loan defaulters are not maintained by the MoLE, he had forwarded the RTI application to the finance ministry. As for the employment schemes, he told the CIC during the hearing last week, that all information regarding employment schemes launched by the government such as the Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Protsahan Yojana (PMRPY) was available on the website www.ncs.gov.in and at a toll-free number 1800-4251514, both of which are functional from Tuesdays to Sundays. 
 
However, the RTI applicant, Jadoun, argued that the information he was seeking was more elaborate in terms of details of costs and investments involved in the employment-generating projects and schemes launched since 2005. 
 
The officer responded that such information is available with the regional offices under the jurisdiction of the ministry of rural development, and the ministry of skill development and entrepreneurship. He also claimed to have forwarded the RTI application to other related ministries for more information. 
 
The CIC observed that the records show that the CPIO had not transferred the RTI application to the other public authorities. The CIC observed, “When the CPIO does not transfer an RTI request to the appropriate authority, it becomes his duty to collect the information and furnish it to the appellant. The CPIO dismissed the request saying “information was not maintained in the form sought”, which is neither a defence nor an exception. This is not recognised as an excuse to deny information under any of the provisions of RTI.”
 
Regarding the number of wilful loan defaulters of Rs50 crore and above, the CIC referred to several newspaper reports and stated that such information should be made public under Section 4 of the RTI Act. He writes in his order that this RTI applicant has given the opportunity to the ministry to upload the information as the public at large has the right to know the names of individuals who have been given loans above Rs50 crore. Similarly, it must share the names of those who have defaulted and if none have defaulted, it should say so in the public domain.
 
CIC further states in the order, “The question is, that when the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has authorised the banks to prepare the list of wilful defaulters of Rs25 lakh, and after ensuring that no genuine loan-taker’s name is published in the list of wilful defaulters, why not ensure publication of the details of wilful defaulters of Rs50 crore and above as sought by this appellant, to the nation to fulfil the right to information of the citizens? And why should the government of India, the ministries of finance and for statistics and program implementation and the RBI not reveal the action taken or contemplated to recover the loans from wilful defaulters beyond Rs50 crore, reasons for the failure, criminal actions initiated, or reasons for not initiating criminal actions etc to the people?’’
 
The CIC also pointed out that “Section 4(1) (c) of the RTI Act mandates to publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect the public; section (d) says provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. What is the policy of the finance ministry, the ministry for statistics and program implementation and the RBI in dealing with the wilful defaulters of Rs50 crore and above?’’
 
Earlier in February 2016, the Supreme Court directed RBI to furnish a list of the companies which are in default of loans in excess of Rs500 crore or whose loans have been restructured under corporate debts restructuring (CDR) scheme by banks and financial institutions. (Read: Supreme Court asks RBI to submit list of big defaulters)
 
Even in December 2015, the apex court, in a landmark judgement, has told the RBI that the banking regulator cannot withhold information citing 'fiduciary relations' under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Hearing a set of transferred cases, a Division Bench of Justice MY Eqbal and Justice C Nagappan said, "From the past we have also come across financial institutions which have tried to defraud the public. These acts are neither in the best interests of the Country nor in the interests of citizens. To our surprise, the RBI as a Watch Dog should have been more dedicated towards disclosing information to the general public under the Right to Information Act. We also understand that the RBI cannot be put in a fix, by making it accountable to every action taken by it. However, in the instant case the RBI is accountable and as such it has to provide information to the information seekers under Section 10(1) of the RTI Act."
 
In most of the transferred cases, Shailesh Gandhi, former CIC, while directing the RBI to provide information sought by applicants, had rejected the central bank's contention of 'fiduciary relation' for denying information. 
 
Here is the link to the RTI Judgement Series based on orders passed by Mr Gandhi as CIC.
 
Why the information on loan defaulters above Rs50 crore should be made public: The CIC referred to the following news reports to qualify his order directing the finance ministry and the RBI to provide information on loan defaulters as asked by the RTI applicant:
 
 
  • After several bank officials were arrested in Rs11300 crore scam, involving the Punjab National Bank, the All India Bank Officers Confederation (AIBOC) (with a membership of three lakh officers) has posed a challenge to the Central government for the publication of the names of wilful defaulters of all banks. AIBOC asked why the RBI was hesitating to publish the list of such defaulters as Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi and why they were allowed to leave the country. AIBOC questioned banks; the way they are writing off loans of thousands of crores every year in favour of these corporates, which itself was major scam. AIBOC has alleged that the RBI and the government did not correct the system despite it being well known that SWIFT system has been used for frauds in the nineties.  (https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/bank-officers-union-challenges-govt-to-publish-names-of-defaulters-1175659-2018-02-23)
 
  • The apprehensions of AIBOC were proved by media’s analytical reports. One report last year says about 7,000 millionaires shifted their residence outside India, or changed their citizenship, leaving the banks, economy of the nation, public exchequer and public sector banks bleeding.
 
 
 
  • In April 2018 the Fugitive Economic Offenders Ordinance was passed. A committee headed by financial services secretary Rajiv Kumar, with representatives from the RBI, the ministries of home and external affairs, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has since recommended stopping willful defaulters with loans exceeding Rs50 crore from travelling overseas without prior approval.
 
  • In March, banks had been directed to seek the passport details of borrowers taking loans of Rs50 crore and more. The website reported that for the quarter ended June 30, 2018, as many as 3,385 suits were filed against defaulting companies that had willfully  defaulted on loans of Rs25 lakh and above - amounting to a whopping Rs57,523.90 crore. The finance ministry had also directed public sector banks (PSBs) to examine all NPA accounts of over Rs50 crore for possible fraud and accordingly report the cases to concerned investigating agencies, including CBI, ED and DRI, if any wrongdoing was detected.(https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/-wilful defaulters-with-loans-over-rs-50-crore-from-foreign-travel/story/281122.html)
 
  • The RBI has issued a master circular regarding willful defaulters, on 30 June  2015. It says that pursuant to the instructions of the Central Vigilance Commission for collection of information on willful defaults of Rs25 lakh and above by RBI and dissemination to the reporting banks and financial institutions (FIs), a scheme was framed by RBI with effect from 1 April 1999 under which the banks and notified all India financial institutions were required to submit to RBI the details of the willful defaulters. This circular recommended criminal action by banks under Sections 403 to 415 of the Indian Penal Code, which deal with cheating. 
 
  • Ministry of corporate affairs had introduced the concept of a director identification number (DIN) with the insertion of Sections 266A to 266G in the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2006. In order to ensure that directors are correctly identified and in no case, persons whose names appear to be similar to the names of directors appearing in the list of willful defaulters, are wrongfully denied credit facilities on such grounds, banks / FIs have been advised to include the DIN as one of the fields in the data submitted by them to credit information companies.
 
You may also want to read…
 
 
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.
 
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

65 LS members, 29 RS members yet to declare assets, reveals RTI
Sixty-five members of the Lok Sabha and 29 of the Rajya Sabha are yet to declare their assets and liabilities, a reply to a query under the RTI Act has revealed.
 
Out of the MPs belonging to the lower house, 61 have not furnished their details since 2014, while four recently came to the house through by-elections, the Lok Sabha secretariat said in a reply to activist Rachna Kalra, who had put a query under the Right to Information Act.
 
"As on August 14, 61 Members of 16th Lok Sabha have not yet furnished declarations of their 'Assets and Liabilities as per the Members of Lok Sabha (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Rules, 2004'.
 
"Further, four new Member of Lok Sabha who had recently been elected to Lok Sabha in bye-elections are also to furnish the declarations of Assets and Liabilities. They have 90 days time to furnish the same from the date of their taking oath/Affirmation," the reply reads.
 
Among those who have not filed their details in the Lower House of the Parliament are nine members from Indian National Congress (INC) and seven from Telugu Desam Party (TDP).
 
Four members each from All India Trinamool Congress (AITC), Biju Janata Dal (BJD), Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Samajwadi Party (SP), Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) and Lok Jan Shakti Party (LJSP) are also yet to declare their assets.
 
The list also includes three members from Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and two members each from Shiv Sena, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), Janata Dal (United) and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM).
 
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), YSR Congress Party, Indian National Lok Dal (INLD), National People's Party (NPP), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Nationalist Democratic Progressive Party (NDPP), Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party (JKPDP), All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), All India NR Congress (AINRC) and the Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) account for one member each who have not given the details of their assets and liabilities.
 
In the Upper House, under the Members of Rajya Sabha (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Rules, 2004, "current elected members are required to furnish the details of assets and liabilities, within 90 days from the date of taking oath or making affirmation in the Council of States".
 
As on August 9, "the requisite declaration of Assets and Liabilities is awaited from 29 members of Rajya Sabha", another RTI query revealed.
 
Six members each from BJP and INC were among the members who are yet to declare the assets.
 
Three members each from RJD, AITC and TRS are also on the list along with two members each from BJD and JD(U).
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

 

Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

Deepak Narain

2 months ago

How so much eloquently they may talk, thieves are there all around and their leadership is helpless. This our democracy...........shame..........

DU earns over Rs3 cr in revaluation fees, fights against bringing answer-sheets under RTI
The Delhi University earned over Rs3 crore in fees paid by students for either revaluation or rechecking their answer-sheets and for providing photocopies of answer-sheets to them between 2015-16 and 2017-18, an RTI has revealed.
 
According to the information provided by the university, it earned Rs2,89,12,310 for revaluation alone between 2015-16 and 2017-18. 
 
During the same period, it earned Rs23,29,500 for rechecking and Rs6,49,500 for providing students copies of answer-scripts evaluated.
 
As per university rules, students have to shell out Rs1,000 for revaluation of a single copy and Rs750 for rechecking of the answer-script -- which means only re-totalling of the marks -- and same amount has to be paid for obtaining photocopy of answer-script also.
 
The information regarding the income generated was given by the varsity in response to an RTI application filed by a former Delhi University student, who had demanded that he be allowed the inspection of his answer-script free of cost as per a certain RTI section which allows inspection of public records. 
 
"I had filed an RTI seeking inspection of my answer-script in 2016. My plea dragged on for two years and I had to take recourse to the CIC (Central Information Commission), which ordered the university to let me inspect the answer-script as per RTI's Section 2(j). 
 
"The university is yet to allow me the inspection of my answer-script. It has said it will pursue the matter further at the high court," the former law student told IANS. 
 
The RTI Section 2(j) lays down that a person can access records kept under any public authority for, among other purposes, "inspection... taking notes, extracts".
 
The applicant said had he been allowed the inspection of his answer-script, and in case any discrepancy found, he would have asked for the re-totalling/ revaluation to be done by the university free of charge, since he is not bound to pay for the mistakes made by the university. 
 
"This is a grave issue of public interest. Not every one is rich enough to spend Rs1,000 or Rs750 for revaluation. Also logically, if discrepancy is found, the university should be duty-bound to correct it without cost... They (university administration) are making students pay for the mistakes they made," he said. 
 
The Central Information Commission (CIC) in its August 18 decision had ordered the Delhi University to allow the applicant inspection of his answer copy in "larger public interest".
 
"... The Commission felt that issue under consideration involved larger public interest affecting the fate of all students who wish to obtain information regarding their answer-sheet/ marks.
 
"Hence allowing inspection of their own answer sheets to the students ought to be allowed as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005," the Commission said, adding that the applicant be allowed the inspection of his answer-sheets within 15 days of this letter. 
 
When he was not allowed the inspection of his answer-sheet even after the CIC decision, the former DU student approached the Public Information Officer of the university later in the month through another RTI, who told him that the university's Examination Branch (which keeps the answer-sheets) has decided to challenge the verdict. 
 
Earlier, before the CIC, the university officials had contended against allowing of inspection of answer-sheets as per the RTI Act provisions, saying that doing so "would render their existing mechanism of providing hard copies...redundant". 
 
"The Respondent...apprehended that allowing inspection of files would render their own mechanism of providing certified copy of answer-scripts as per the fee prescribed in their regulations as meaningless, since the candidates would would certainly opt for inspection as per...RTI Act, 2005," the CIC noted in its verdict. 
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

 

Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

online financial advisory
Pathbreakers
Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
online financia advisory
The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Online Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
financial magazines online
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
financial magazines in india
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)