Reserve Bank Of India vs Jayantilal N. Mistry

2. It has been contended by the RBI that it carries out inspections of banks and financial institutions on regular basis and the inspection reports prepared by it contain a wide range of information that is collected in a fiduciary capacity. The facts in brief of the Transfer Case No.91 of 2015 are that during May-June, 2010 the statutory inspection of Makarpura Industrial Estate Cooperative Bank Ltd. was conducted by RBI under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Thereafter, in October 2010, the Respondent sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:

3. On 30.3.2011, the First Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal of the respondent agreeing with the reply given by CPIO in query No.2, 3 & first part of 4, relying on the decision of the Full Bench of CIC passed in the case of Ravin Ranchochodlal Patel and another vs. Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, in the second appeal preferred by the aggrieved respondent, the Central Information Commission by the impugned order dated 01.11.2011, directed RBI to provide information as per records to the Respondent in relation to queries Nos.2 to 6 before 30.11.2011. Aggrieved by the decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC), petitioner RBI moved the Delhi High Court by way of a Writ Petition inter alia praying for quashing of the aforesaid order of the CIC. The High Court, while issuing notice, stayed the operation of the aforesaid order.

5. In this matter, it has been alleged by the petitioner RBI that the respondent is aggrieved on account of his application form for three-in-one account with the Bank and ICICI Securities Limited (ISEC) lost in the floods in July, 2005 and because of non-submission of required documents, the Trading account with ISEC was suspended, for which respondent approached the District Consumer Forum, which rejected the respondent’s allegations of tempering of records and dismissed the complaint of the respondent. His appeal was also dismissed by the State Commission. Respondent then moved an application under the Act of 2005 pertaining to the suspension of operation of his said trading account. As the consumer complaint as well as the abovementioned application did not yield any result for the respondent, he made an application under the Act before the CPIO, SEBI, appeal to which went up to the CIC, the Division Bench of which disposed of his appeal upholding the decision of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority of SEBI. Thereafter, in August 2009, respondent once again made the present application under the Act seeking aforesaid information. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, respondent moved second appeal before the CIC, who by the impugned order directed the CPIO of RBI to furnish information pertaining to Advisory Notes as requested by the respondent within 15 working days. Hence, RBI approached Bombay High Court by way of writ petition.

13. The CIC allowed the second appeal and directed the CPIO FED of the Petitioner to provide complete information in queries 1, 2, 9 and 10 of the original application of the Respondent before 05.01.2012. The CPIO, FED complied with the order of the CIC in so far queries 2, 9 and 10 are concerned. The RBI filed writ petition for quashing the order of CIC so far as it directs to provide complete information as per record on query No.1.

Accordingly, the transfer petitions are allowed and the above mentioned writ petitions are withdrawn to this Court. The High Court of Delhi and the High Court of Bombay are directed to remit the entire record of the said writ petitions to this Court within four weeks.”

63. In the present case, we have to weigh between the public interest and fiduciary relationship (which is being shared between the RBI and the Banks). Since, RTI Act is enacted to empower the common people, the test to determine limits of Section 8 of RTI Act is whether giving information to the general public would be detrimental to the economic interests of the country? To what extent the public should be allowed to get information?

64. In the context of above questions, it had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers (PIO) under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.

65. And in this case the RBI and the Banks have sidestepped the General public’s demand to give the requisite information on the pretext of “Fiduciary relationship” and “Economic Interest”. This attitude of the RBI will only attract more suspicion and disbelief in them. RBI as a regulatory authority should work to make the Banks accountable to their actions.

81. In rest of the cases the CIC has considered elaborately the information sought for and passed orders which in our opinion do not suffer from any error of law, irrationality or arbitrariness.

82. We have, therefore, given our anxious consideration to the matter and came to the conclusion that the Central Information Commissioner has passed the impugned orders giving valid reasons and the said orders, therefore, need no interference by this Court.

83. There is no merit in all these cases and hence they are dismissed.