Do you want to procure inspection reports, a list of loan defaulters, or even a simple directory of employees of various banks under the Right to Information (RTI) Act? Well, what is the hurry? Wait for the Supreme Court’s order on writ petitions by the banks that have appealed to keep most of such information a secret, defying its dissemination as per a central information commission (CIC) ruling and upheld by this highest judiciary authority.
Last week, CIC Saroj Punhani, referring to the two writ petitions filed by the banks, ruled in her order that the writ petitions “are admitted in Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein guidance and direction has been sought on non-disclosure of a certain type of information which are essentially part of the annual inspection report (AIR) and risk assessment report (RAR). These petitions also seek the protection of interim communication between the regulator and the regulated entity in the process of finalisation of these reports or otherwise.”
Ms Punhani goes on to add that it would be 'prejudging' if the public authorities provide or deny information as “the decision of these writ petitions will provide clarity and guidance to the public authority on redaction/ non-disclosure of a set of information in spite of being part of these reports which are open to disclosure.”
“At this stage, any decision by the public authority will amount to pre-judging the issues pending admitted writ petitions before the Supreme Court. Various banks, financial institutions, respondent public authority and the RTI applicant have already impleaded party and are presenting their arguments before the apex court.”
Ms Punhani further stated that once the Supreme Court gives the order to the two writ petitions, “it will provide further clarity to the central public information officer (CPIO) or first appellate authority (FAA) in adjudicating various aspects of disclosure/ non-disclosure of reports or the information/ data which are part of these reports under the provisions of the RTI Act.”
CIC Punhani noted in her order that the second appeals pertaining to the disclosure of inspection reports by the banks are “based on interpretations of RBI Vs. Jayantilal Mistry case and other relevant judicial pronouncements requesting full disclosure vis-à-vis with exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act for nondisclosure of full or parts of these reports.”
Making her stand clear on the issue, she reiterated that the information which is being desired to be opaque by the banks actually comes under “Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, as the regulator and the regulated entities are not governed by fiduciary relationship.”
Ms Punhani observed that there are two sets of information that have been shared by the banks with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the source from which the RTI applicant wanted information.
The first is: The information/ data of clients relating to their business/ commercial operations, financial transactions, and business and commercial strategy which is shared by clients with financial institutions in full trust and confidence and is held by them in a fiduciary capacity, protected from disclosure under the RTI Act in their hands.
The second is: The information relating to business strategy, decisions, transactions, other operational data, etc. of financial institutions have been bearing on their competitive position which also enjoys the exemption from disclosure in their hands, if it is a public authority or otherwise, under the RTI Act. Some of such data, on case to case basis, can be sensitive enough for the protection of national interest.
Therefore – “The Commission is of the view that the protection of disclosure of information under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the hands of financial institutions does not evaporate once such data/information is shared, in good faith and trust, with the regulator under a statutory obligation. Various observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jayantilal Mistry’s case also do not indicate so and the decision of the regulator to consider redacting such data/information while disclosing the reports is aligned with this and other judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court and High Courts.”
This second appeal hearing was a sequel to the RTI applicant Girish Mittal filing an RTI application in April 2019 seeking the following information but the second appeal has been filed by the third party, i.e., Union Bank of India aggrieved by an order passed by the FAA, RBI:
(a) Kindly provide copies of inspection reports of ICICI Bank, AXIS Bank, Yes Bank, HDFC Bank & State Bank of India from, Bank of Baroda, Punjab National Bank, and Union Bank of India from 1 April 2015 till date.
(b) Kindly provide copies of any show-cause notices issued to banks mentioned in point (a), response to the show cause notices, and action taken, if any, by RBI.
(c) Kindly provide a list of defaulters of more greater than Rs50 crore as available with RBI.
(d) Copies of case files with file innings on various irregularities detected by RBI in the case of Sahara group of companies and erstwhile Bank of Rajasthan by these entities themselves and their known/unknown promoters.
(e) Kindly provide information on the amount spent in the form of fees of lawyers, out of pocket expenses along with any misc. charges spent by RBI in defending the cases against the orders of CIC in the High Courts/ Supreme Court. Kindly provide a list of giving details in each case or provide copies of challans, invoices, bills, etc, with file notings, approvals et al. This information needs to be provided even if it is not available on a consolidated basis and spread across various files.
(f) Kindly provide information 013 the directory of employees of RBI which is required to be declared as per 4(1)(b)(10) with their email ids. The details on the website do not give their mobile phones (if paid by RBI) and email.
You may also want to read…
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the 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”.)
