RESERVE BANK OF INDIA versus JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 505, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 14S.C.R. 505 
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
(Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015) 
DECEMBER 16, 2015 
[M. Y. EQBAL AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Right To Information Act, 2005-ss.2(f), 8(1)(a), (d), (e) 
and 10(1)- Information under the Act- To what extent can 
be given - Whether can be denied to the public, by Reserve C 
Bank of India on the ground of economic interest, commercial 
confidence and fiduciary relationship with other Banks - Held: 
The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary 
that people have access to information on matters of public 
concern - Therefore, right to information has been made as D 
one of the fundamental rights u/Art. 19 of the Constitution 
and also 2005 Act has been brought into effect- However, 
neither the fundamental right nor the right to.information are 
absolute - Therefore, all the information that the Government 
generates is not required to be given out to the public- Thus, E 
RBI cannot be put in a fix, by making it accountable to every 
action taken by it - However, in the present case RBI is 
accountable - The disclosure of information sought for does 
not go against the economic interest of the nation - RBI being 
a statutory regulatory body has the statutory duty to uphold F 
the interest of public at large and not of other Banks - Thus, 
there is no relationship of 'trust' I 'fiduciary relationship' 
between RBI and other Banks - Even if it is held that RBI . 
had fiduciary relationship
with other Banks, s.2(f) would still 
make the information .shared between them to be accessible G 
· by the public- RBI is duty bound to comply with the provisions 
of the Act thus bound to provide information u/s. 10(1 ). 
Words and Phrases- 'Fiduciary relationship' - Meaning 
of, in the context of s.8(1 )(e) of Right to Information Act, 2005. 
H 
505
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the matters, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. The Central Information Commissioner 
has passed the impugned orders giving valid reasons 
and the said orders, therefore, need no interference by 
this Court. [Para 82][564-F] 
2.1 Fiduciary relationship is "a relationship in which 
one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the 
other on the matters within the scope of the fiduciary 
relationship. Fiduciary relationship usually arise in one 
c of the lour situations (1) when one person places trust 
in the. faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains 
superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one 
person assumes control and responsibility over another, 
(3) when one person has a duty to act or give advice to 
0 
another on matters falling within the scope of the 
relationship, or (4) when there is specific relationship that 
has traditionally be recognized as involving fiduciary 
duties, as with a lawyer and a client, or a .stockbroker 
and a customer." [Para 55][549-H] 
E 
Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. 
vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. 2011 (11) SCR 
1028: (2011) 8 sec 497 - relied on. 
2.2 RBI is a statutory body set up by the RBI Act as 
India's Central Bank. It is a statutory regulatory authority 
F to oversee the functioning of the banks and the country's 
banking sector. Under Section 35A of the Banking 
Regulation Act, RBI has been given powers to issue any 
direction to the
banks in public interest, in the interest of 
banking policy and to secure proper management of a 
G banking company. It has several other "far-reaching 
statutory powers. [Para 59][554-F·G] 
. 2.3 RBI has no legal duty to maximize the benefit of 
any public sector or private sector bank, and thus there 
H is no relationship of 'trust' between them. RBI has a
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
507 
statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large, A 
the depositors, the country's economy and the banking 
sector. Thus, RBI ought to act with transparency and not 
hide information that might embarrass individual banks. 
It is duty bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI 
Act and disclose the information sought by the B 
respondents. [Para 60)[554-H; 555-A-B] 
2.4 The RBI does not place itself in a fiduciary 
relationship with the Financial institutions because, the 
reports of the inspections, statements of the bank, 
information related to the business obtained by the RBI C 
are not under the pretext of confidence or trust. In this 
case neither the RBI nor the Banks act in the interest of 
each other. By attaching an additional "fiduciary" label 
to the statutory duty, the Regulatory authorities have 
intentionally or unintentionally created an in terrorem D 
· effect. [Para 58)(554-D-E] 
2.5 The plea of the RBI that the disclosure would 
hurt the economic interest of the country is totally 
misconceived. In the impugned order, the CIC has given E 
several reasons to state why the disclosure of the 
information sought by the respondents would hugely 
serve public interest, and non-disclosure would be 
significantly detrimental to public interest and not in the 
economic interest of India. RBl's argument that if people, F 
who are sovereign, are made aware of the irregularities 
being committed by the
banks then the country's 
economic security would be endangered, is not only 
· absurd but is equally misconceived and baseless. [Para 
61][555-C-E] 
. 
2.6 The exemption contained in Section 8(1)(e) of 
RTI Act applies to exceptional cases and only with regard· 
to certain pieces of information, for which disclosure 
is unwarranted or undesirable. If information is available 
G 
H
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A with a regulatory agency not in fiduciary relationship, 
there is no reason to withhold the disclosure of the 
same. However, where information is. required by 
mandate of law to be provided to an authority, it cannot 
be said that such information is being provided in a 
B fiduciary relationship. As in the instant case, the Financial 
institutions have an obligation to provide all the 
information to the RBI and such an information shared 
under an obligation/ duty cannot be considered to come 
under the purview of being shared in fiduciary 
C relationship. One of the main characteristic ofa Fiduciary 
relationship is "Trust and Confidence". Something that . 
RBI and the Banks lack between them. [Para 62][555-E-
H] 
2. 7 The Public Information Officers (PIO) under the 
D guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of 
RTI Act, evade the general public from getting their hands 
on the rightful information that they are entitled to. In 
the present case, the RBI and the Banks have 
sidestepped the General public's demand to give the 
E 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. [Paras 64 and 
F 65][556-C-E] 
2.8 The RTI Act under Section 2(f) clearly provides 
that the inspection reports, documents
etc. fall under the 
purview of "Information" which is obtained by the public 
authority (RBI) from a private body. From sectio.n 2(f), it 
G can be inferred that the Legislature's intent was to make 
available to the general public such information which 
had been obtained by the public authorities from the r 
private body. Had it been the case where only 
information related to public authorities was to be 
H
RESERVE BANKOF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
509 . 
provided, the Legislature would not have included the A 
word "private body". In the present case, the RBI is liable 
to provide information regarding inspection report and 
other documents to the general public. [Paras 66 and 
67)(556-E-F, H; 557-A-B] 
2.9 Even if RBI and the Financial Institutions shared B 
a "Fiduciary Relationship", Section 2(f) would still make 
the information shared between them to be accessible 
by the public. The facts reveal that Banks are trying to 
cover up their underhand actions, they are even more 
liable to be subjected to public scrutiny. [Para 68)(557-
C 
.B-C] 
3.1 It cannot be said that disclosure of information 
·sought for will also go against the economic interest 
of the nation. Economic interest of a nation in most 0 
common parlance are the goals which a nation wants 
to attain to fulfil. its national objectives. National interest 
can't be seen with the spectacles(glasses) devoid of 
· economic interest. It includes·in its ambit a wide range 
of economic tra.nsactions or economic activities E 
necessary and beneficial to attain the goals of a 
J. 
nation, which definitely includes as an objective 
economic empowerment of its citizens. One of the tool 
to attain this goal is to make information available to 
people. Because an informed citizen has the capacity F 
to reasoned action and also to evaluate the actions of 
the legislature and executives, which is very important 
in a
participative democracy and this will serve the 
nation's interest better which also includes its economic 
· interests. Recognizing the significance of this tool it has G 
not only been made one of the fundamental rights under 
Article 19 of the Constitution but also a Central Act has 
been brought into effect as the Right to Information Act, 
2005. [Paras 72, 73 and 74][558-B-F] 
· 
H
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
3.2 Neither the Fundamental Rights nor the Right 
to Information have been provided in absolute terms. 
The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 
Clause 1(a) are restricted under Article 19 clause 2 on 
the grounds of national and societal interest. Similarly 
B Section 8, clause 1 of Right to Information Act, 2005, 
contains the exemption provisions where right to 
information can be denied to public in the name of 
national security and sovereignty, national economic 
interests, relations with foreign states etc. Thus, not 
c all the information that the Government generates will 
or shall be given out to the public. Rights can be enjoyed 
without any inhibition only when they are nurtured within 
protective boundaries. Any excessive use of these 
rights which may lead to tampering these boundaries 
o will not further the national interest. And when it comes 
to national economic interest, disclosure of information 
about currency or exchange rates, interest rates, taxes, 
the regulation or supervision of banking, insurance 
and other financial institutions, proposals for expenditure 
E or borrowing and foreign investment could in some 
cases harm the national economy, particularly if 
released prematurely. However, lower level economic 
and financial information, like contracts and departmental 
budgets sho\Jld not be withheld under this exemption. 
F This makes it necessary to think when or at what stage 
an
information is to be provided i.e., the appropriate 
time of providing the information which will depend on 
nature of information sought for and the consequences 
it will lead to after coming in public domain. [Para 76][559· 
G A-HJ 
3.3 The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes 
it necessary that people have access to information on 
matters of public concern. The free flow of information 
about affairs of Government paves way for debate in 
H public policy and fosters accountability in Government.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
511 
It ·creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a A 
foundation of democracy. [Para 75][558-G-H] 
3.4 Though 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 
B 
under Section 10(1) of the RTIAct. [Para 71][557-F-G] 
Mardia Chemicals Limited vs. Union of India 2004 
(3) SCR 982 : (2004) 4 SCC 311 - relied on. 
State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 865 : 
1975 (3) SCR 333; S.P. Gupta v. President of India 
and Ors.AIR 1982SC149: 1982SCR365; Union 
of India vs. Association for 9emocratic Reforms 
AIR 2002 SC 2112: 2002 (3) SCR 696; PUCL 
vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399 - referred 
to. 
Case Law Reference 
2011(11) SCR 1028 relied on. 
Para 35 
1975 (3) SCR 333 
referred to. 
Para 39 
c 
D 
1982 SCR 365 
referred to. 
Para 40 
E 
2002 (3) SCR 696 
referred to. 
Para 41 
2003 (2) SCR 1136 
referred to. 
Para 41 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transferred Case 
(Civil) No. 91 of 2015. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2011 passed 
by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi in Appeal 
No, CIC/SM/N2011/001487/SG. 
WITH 
T. C. (C) Nos. 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 and G 
101 of2015. 
· T. R. Andhyarujina, Prag P. Tripathy, Rakesh Munjal, 
Shyam Diwan, A. S. Chadha, G. M. Akbar Ali, Sr. Advs.,. 
Kuldeep S. Parihar, H. S. Parihar, Soumik
Ghoshal, 
H
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. . 
A 
P. Narasimhan, S. K. Ray, Ms. Sanaya Dadachanaji, 
Ms. Vernika Tomar, Ms. Daggar Malhotra, Bharat Sangal, 
Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Nina Gupta, Mudit Sharma, Prashant 
Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Ms. Neha Rathi, 0. Kuttan, 
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, K. R. Anand, Avinash Kumar Jain (For 
B Vivek Gupta), Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Ms. Srishti Rani, Dilpreet· 
Singh, V. Balaji, M. S. M. Asai Thambi, C. Kannan, 
Ms, Sripradha Krishnan, S. Nagarajan, Rakesh K. Sharma, 
Amol B. Karande, Rajsaheb Patil, Shikhar Khare, Advs. for 
· appearing parties. 
c . 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. The main issue that arises for our 
consideration in these tr.ansferred cases is as to whether all 
the information sought for under the Right to Information Act, 
2005 can be denied by the Reserve Bank of India and other 
D Banks to the public at large on the ground of economic interest, 
commercial confidence, fiduciary relationship with other Bank 
on the one hand and the public interest on the other. If the 
answer to above question is in negative, then upto what extent 
the information can be provided under the 2005 Act. 
E 
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 
F May-June, 2010 the statutory inspection of Makarpura Industrial 
G 
H 
·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: 
sr. No.· 
Information 
. 
Reply 
souaht 
1. 
Procedure 
Rules 
and 
RBI is conducting inspections 
Regulations of Inspection 
under Section 35 of the B.R. 
being carried out on Co-
Act 1949 (AACS) at prescribed 
operative Banks 
intervals.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
513. 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
2. 
Last 
RBI 
investigation and 
The 
Information 
sought 
is 
A 
audit report carried out by Shg maintained 
by the bank 
in 
a 
Santosh Kumar th during 23r 
fiduciary capacity and was obtained 
April, 2010 to 6 
May, 2010 by Reserve Bank during the course 
sent 
to 
Registrar 
rn 
the of inspection of the bank and hence 
Cooperative rn the Gujarat 
cannot be given to the outsiders: 
State, 
Gandhinagar 
on 
Moreover, 
disclosure 
of 
such 
MakarQUra 
Industrial 
Estate information may harm the interest 
Co-op Bank Ltd Reg. No.2808 
of the bank & banking system. 
Such information is also exemft 
from disclosure under Section 8( ) 
(a) & (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 
B 
. 
3. 
Last 
20 
years 
inspection Same as at (2) above 
(carried out with name 
of 
inspector) report on 
above 
bank and action taken rennrt. 
4. 
(i) Reports on all co-operative 
(i) Same as at (2) above 
c 
banks gone on liquidation 
(ii) This information is available 
(ii) action taken against all 
with Department 
Directors and Managers for 
recovery of public funds and 
powers utilized by RBI and 
analysis 
and 
procedure 
adonted. 
. 
D 
5. 
Name 
rn 
remaining 
co-
No specific information has been 
operative 
banks 
under 
our 
sought 
observations 
against 
irregularities and action taken 
reports 
6. 
Period 
required 
to take 
No 
specific 
information 
E 
action and implementations 
been sought 
3. On 30.3.2011; the First
Appellate Authority disposed 
F 
of fhe 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 Ban/< of India. 
Thereafter, in the second appeal preferred by the aggrieved G 
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 
H
514 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14S.C.R. 
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. 
4. Similarly, in Transfer Case No. 92 of 2015, the 
Respondent sought following information from the CPIO of RBI 
under the Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder: 
~· r-- -· ·- ·- -
--- ---- ·-•.-- -· .... ' 
Sr. I 
Information sought 
Reply 
No. 
1. 
The Hon'ble FM made a written In the absence of the specific 
statement on the Floor of the details, we are not able to provide 
House which inter alia must any information. 
have been made after verifying 
I 
the records from RBI and the 
Bank must have the copy of 
the facts as reported by FM. 
I
. Please supply copy of the note 
sent to FM 
2. 
The 
Hon'ble FM 
made a We do not have this information. 
I 
statement that some of the 
3. 
banks fike SBI, ICICI Bank ltd, 
I 
I 
Bank of Baroda, Dena Bank, 
HSBC Bank etc. were issued 
letter 
of 
displeasure 
for 
j 
I 
violating FEMA guidelines for 
opening of accounts where as 
some other banks were even 
I 
fined Rupees one crore for 
such violations. 
Please give 
•1 me the names of the banks 
I 
with 
details 
of 
violations 
committed by them. 
'Advisory Note' issued to ICICI 
Bank for account opened by 
some fraudsters at
its Patna 
I 
Branch 
Information 
sought 
about 
"exact 
nature 
of 
i irregularities committed by the 
I bank under "FEMA 
I 
An 
Advisory 
Letter had 
been I 
issued to the bank in December, I 
2007 for the bank's Patna branch 
having failed to (a) comply with the 
RBI 
guiderines 
on 
customer I 
identificatkln, 
opening/operating 
customer accounts, (b) the bank 
not having followed the normal 
banker's prudence while opening 
an account in question.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
515 
4. 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
Also gve list of ctrer AA - reg;ircJs. the 
list~ 
ill eg;il ities comrritted by 
su~rvisory action taken by LS, 
IBL and other details of it may be stated !rat tre query 
offences comrritted by IBL is too genera and nct specific. 
thro~h various trancres Further, we may state that 
in India and abroad aong 
Su~rviSJry 
actions 
taken 
with actiai t<i<en by tre were based on the scrutiny 
Regulator irducing tre conducted under Section 35 d 
nanes and desigiatims the Banking Regulation (BR) 
of his officials branch fa.ct 
The information in the 
nane, type d dfence scrutiny rei;ort is held in 
comritted etc. Tre exact fidu:;iary C<:llactty and the 
naturB 
of 
dfences disclost.re of vlhi ch can affect 
comrritted 
by 
Petra the ecomnic interest of the 
Branch of the bark and comtry aid also affect the 
other branches d tre commercial confidence of the 
baik aid names of tis baik And such informatim is 
officias invdved, type of also exernµ from disdosure 
offence 
oommitted 
by under Section 8(1)(a)(d) & (e) 
them 
and 
plllishment d 
the 
RTI 
Act 
(extracts 
a\Aflrded 
by 
concerned erdosed). We, therefore, a-e 
autmrity, 
rarnes 
and urable to accede to )Qur 
desigration 
of 
tre request 
designated authomy, wm 
investigated 
tre abcNe 
case and his findings and 
pmishrnent awa-ded" 
Exact 
na!t.re 
of 
irregularities comnitted by 
!CIC! Baik in Haig Kong 
In this regcrd, self explicit print 
out
taken from the website d 
Securities 
and 
Futt.res 
Comnission, Hong Kong is 
erdosed. 
5. 
ICICI 
Bark's 
MoSCON I/Ve 
do 
not 
rave 
the 
Branch involved in money infamation. 
lamdering act 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
516 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 14 S.C.R. 
A 
---· 
6. 
lrrµisition of fine 01 ICICI We cb mt rave any inforrraion to 
Bank under Section 13 of Ire furnish in this regard. 
Rv1.A for loss d dorurents i1 
floods. 
B 
----
7. 
Copy of the Warning or Ps 
regards 
yrur 
req..iest 
fcr 
'Advisory N'.lie' issua:I twice oopes/detals of a:Jviscry letters to 
issued to the bark in tre last ICICI Bank, v-.e rray state that Sld1 
i:IAo 
yeas 
and 
reasors irtarration 
is 
exanrx 
frcrn 
reoorda:I trerein. 
disdoSU"e urder &rtion 8(1 Xa)(d) 
Name and desigiatim of tre 
ard (e) d the Rrl Pd. The scrutiny 
of records d the ICICI Bank is 
c 
~ authority wto CXl1du:ta:I this oorducted by DLr Departrrert of 
1 meek ard his dedsim to Barking Sl.4Jen.1sim (DBS). n-e 
issue an a:Jvisory note only Ctief <?eneral Mnagar-in cha-ge of 
instea:J of penaties to te the CBS, Certre Office Reserve 
irrpo9ad under tre Pd. 
Bark 
d 
India 
is 
Shri s. 
Kan.ppasarcy. 
D 
5. In this matter, it has been alleged by the petitioner RBI 
E 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 
F 
the District ConsLJmer 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. 
G 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 
H
. . ·~·~. 
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
517 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
to the CIC, the Division Bench of which disposed of his appeal A 
upholding the decision of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority 
of SEBI. Thereafter, in August 2009, respondent once again 
_ made the_ present application underthe Act seeking aforesaid 
information. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate 
_ authority, respondent moved second appeal before the CIC, 
B 
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. 
6. In Transfer Case No. 93 of 2015, the Respondent C 
sought following information from the CPIO of National Bank 
for Agriculture and Rural Development under the Act of 2005, 
reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-_ 
SI. 
Information Sought 
Reply 
No. 
- 1. 
Copies of inspection reports FlJ'f1ishing d 
information is 
· of Apex Co-operative Banks exempt under Section 8(1 )(a) of 
of various 
States/Mumbai the ITTIM. 
DCCB from 2005 till date 
2. 
Copies 
of 
all Different 
Departments 
in 
correspondenres 
with NAB ARD deal with various 
Mararashtra 
State issues related to MSCB. The 
Govt./RBVany other agency query is general in nature. 
of State/Central Co-operative Applicant 
may 
pease 
be 
Bank from January, 2010 till specific 
in 
queiy/inforrnation 
date. 
sought 
3. 
Provide 
confirmed'
draft FLrnishing d 
information is 
minutes 
of 
meetings 
d exempt under Sec. 8(1 )(d) of 
Governing Board/Board of theITTIM. 
Directors/Commtttee 
of 
Directors of NABARD from 
April, 2007 till date 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
518 
A -4. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 14 S.C.R. 
R'Ovide 
irtorrnaial 
on 
corrpliance of Sedion 4 of 
Rn /ld, aJ05 by NllEAAD 
Carpliance a\0ilable on tte 
V1ebsite 
of 
f\11\BL\RD 
i.e. 
www.naterd.org 
B 1-5-. --+-lnfo_11_1 a-tion- _rra_y_be pro.tlde:i -
on am 
7. The First Appellate Authority concurred with the CPIO 
and held that inspection report cannot be supplied in terms of 
C Section 8(1 )(a) of the RTI Act. The Respondent filed Second 
Appeal before the Central Information Commission, which was 
allowed. The RBI filed writ petition before the High Court 
challenging the order of the CIC dated 14.11.2011 on identical 
issue and the High Court stayed the operation of the order of 
D theCIC. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
8. In Transfer Case No. 94 of 2015, the Respondent 
sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the 
Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder: 
si:-- -- . Information Sought- - 1--·. - Reply - . 
No. 
, 
' 1. 
: 
As mentioned at 2(a) what is 'I Pursuant to the then Finance 
RBI doing about uploading Minister's Budget Speech made 
the 
entire 
list 
of 
Bank in Parliament on 281h February, 
. defaulters 
on 
the 
bank's 1994, in order to alert the banks 
website? When will it be and Fis and put them on guard 
done? Why is It not done? 
against the defaulters to other 
lending institutions. RBI has put 
in 
place 
scheme 
to 
coUect 
details about borrowers of banks 
and 
Fis 
with 
outstanding 
aggregating Rs. 1 crore and 
above 
which are
classified as 
'Doubtful' or 'Loss or where suits 
are filed, as on 31" March and 
, 301h September each year. In 
· February 1999, Reserve Bank of 
1 India had also 
introduced a 
scheme 
for 
collection 
and 
dissemination of information on
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
519 
. 
[M. Y. EOBAL, J.] 
cases of willful default of barO\Mlrs A 
with outstaiding balanoe of Rs. 25 
lakh and abCNe. 
M. p-esent, RBI 
disseminates list ri above sad non 
suit filed 
'doul:tful' 
and 
1oss' 
borrov..ed accounts ri Rs.1 crore 
and above on haW-ymrly oosis (i.e. 
B 
as on March 31 ard September 30) 
to 
ranks ard 
Fis. for their 
oonf1dential use. The list ri non-
suit 
filed 
aooounts · of 
VlilWul 
defaulters ri Rs. 25 lakh and abCNe 
is also dlsseminated on quarterly C 
basis to banks ard Fis for their 
confidential use. Section 45 E of 
the Reseive Bank of India Act 1934 
prohibits the Reseive Bank from 
disclosing 
'creel! 
infarnation' 
exoep: in the manner prolided 
therein. 
D 
(i) 
1-bwever, Banks and Fis 
were advised on O::t6ber 1, 2002 to 
. furrish information in respect of 
suit-filed acCounts betv..een Rs. 1 
lakh and Rs. 1 crcre from the 
period erded March, 2002 in a E 
phased manner to CIBIL only. 
CIBIL 
is plocing 
the 
list 
of 
defaulters (suit filed acoounts) of 
Rs. 1 crore and abCNe and list of 
willful 
defaulters 
(suit 
filed 
accounts) of Rs. 25 lakh and abo>e 
F 
as on March 31, 2003 ard onwards 
on its v..ebslte (www.dtil.com) 
9. The Central Information Commission heard the parties 
through video conferencing. The CIC directed the CPIO of the G 
petitioner to provide information as per the records to the 
Respondent in relation to query Nos. 2(b) and 2(c) before 
10.12.2011. The
Commission has also directed the Governor 
RBI to display this information on its website before 31.12.2011, 
H
520 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A in fulfillment of its obligations under Section 4( 1 )(b) (xvii) of the 
Right to Information Act, 2005 and to update it each year. 
_10. In Tran sf er Case No.95 of 2015, following information 
. was sought and reply to it is tabulated hereunder: 
~- ___ __'._.. 
-
.. 
-
B 
SI. 
lnforrriation Sought 
Reply 
No. 
1. 
Complete and detailed information As the vidations ci wlich the 
including 
related banks were issued Show 
documents/oorreiponderre/file 
Cause 
Notices 
and 
nd:ing etc of RBI on imposing fines subseQ.Jently 
mposed 
c 
on some ranks for violating rues like peralties and based on the 
also referred 
in enclosed news findings 
ci 
the 
Amual 
dpping 
Financial Inspection (AFI) of 
the 
banks, 
and 
the 
2. 
Complete list cf ranks which v..ere information is received by us 
issued show cause notices before in a fidi£iary capacity, the 
fine was imposed as also referred in disclosure 
cf 
S1£h 
enclosed news clipping mertioning information 
IMJUld 
also default fer which sha.v cause prejudicialy 
ctfect 
the 
nd:ioe was issued to each of such economic interests ci the 
D 
banks 
State and ham the bank's 
competttive position. 
The 
SCNs/fincl ng;/ reports/ 
associated 
E 
oorrespondences/CJ"ders 
are 
the ref ere 
exempt 
frcrr 
disdOSlJ"e i1 terms of thl 
prCNisions of Section 8(1 )(a 
(d) and . (e) a the Rrl M. 
F 
2005. 
2. 
Ccrnplete list cf ranks which v..ere -do-
issued show cause notices before 
fine was
imposed as also referred in 
enclosed news dippings mertioning 
also default fer which sha.v cause 
nctioe was issued to each of such 
banks. 
G 
3. 
List of banks out of those in query (2) Do 
above where fine was not imposed 
gMng detcils like if their reply was 
satisfactory etc. 
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
521 
. . 
[M. Y. EOBAL: J.) 
4. 
List of tanks wlich wrre ultimtely The nemes of the 19 tanks 
fourd guity and fines mentiaiirg also ard 
ootaiis 
of 
penalty 
arrrunt d fine on ea:h d the tank ard imposed 
on 
them 
are 
criterion to decide fine on ea:h of the furnished 
in 
Amex 
1. 
baik . 
Regarding the crita"ion for 
deciding 
the 
fine, 
the 
paialties 
have 
been 
imposed on these banks for 
contra1enti01 
of various 
directions aid instructions 
such as failure to carry m.t 
prq:ier due diligence on 
user ar;propiateness ::nd 
suitroility 
of 
products, 
seUing renvative podu::ts 
to users not having prqier 
risk Management policies, 
. 
nci ver\fyi rg the unoortying 
/aqequa:y d urdertying and 
e~gble limits under past· 
pafamance route, issued 
by 
RBI 
in 
respect 
d 
derivative traisactions. 
5. 
. Is fine itr4J00ed /action taken 01 sane N;J 
other 
b::nk 
was 
other banks aso ether than as paialized ether thai tJ-ose 
mentioned in enclosed nevis dippng 
mentioned in the. Annex, in 
the caitert d press release 
. 
f'b.~10-2011/1555 of AJ:til 
26,2011 
. 
6 .. 
If yes please provioo details 
f'bt Appicrole, in vieN d . 
the infcrrnation prcwided in 
qJeryNo.5 
7. 
Any other inforrnatim 
Tte query is not si;edfic. 
8. 
Fl.le notirgs m rro1ernert .d tris Rn Copy 
d 
the 
note 
is 
petftion and on every aspect d this Rfl .erdosed. 
Petitim 
. 
11. In the Second Appeal,· the CIC heard the· respondent 
via telephone and
the petitioner through video conferencing. 
As directed by CIC,· the petitioner filed written submission. The . 
A 
B 
c 
.D 
E 
F 
G 
H
522 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
CIC directed the CPIO of the Petitioner to provide complete 
information in relation to queries 1 2 and 3 of the original 
application of the Respondent before 15.12.2011. 
12. In Transfer Case No. 96 of 2015, the Respondent 
sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the 
Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
1 . 
2. 
Before the 
Orissa High 
Court RBI has filed 
an 
affidavit stating 
that the 
total 
·mark 
to 
market 
losses 
on 
account 
of 
currency derivatives 
is to 
the tune of more than Rs. 
32,000 crores Please give 
bank wise 
breakup of the 
M TM Losses 
The 
Information 
sought 
by 
you 
is 
exempted 
under 
Section 8(1)(a) & (e) of RTI 
Act, which state as under; 
8(1) notwithstanding anything 
contained in this Act, there 
shall be no obligation to give 
any citizen 
(a} Information 
disclosure 
of which would prejudicially 
affect the sovereignty 
and 
integrity 
of 
India 
the 
security strategic scientific 
or economic interests of the 
state, relation with foreign 
State or lead to incitement 
of an offence. 
(e} Info rm a tio n a va ila b le to 
a 
person 
in 
his 
fiduciary 
relationship 
unless 
the 
competent 
authority 
is 
satisfied that larger pub lie 
interest 
warrants 
the 
disclosure 
of 
such 
information. 
What is the latest figure 
Please refer to our response 
available with RBI of the 
to 1 above. 
amount of losses suffered 
by 
Indian 
Business
houses? 
Please 
furnish 
the 
latest 
fipu res 
bank 
wise and custom er wise.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
523 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
-~--
3. 
Whether the issue of de-ivatwe We have no information in this 
A 
losses to Indian exporters was matter. 
discussed 
in 
any 
of 
the 
meetings of Govemor/Dep.ity 
Governor or senior official of 
the Reserve Bank of India? If 
so please furnish the minutes 
B 
of the meeting v.here the said 
issue was discussed 
. 
4. 
Any 
other 
Action 
Taken We have no information in this 
Reports by RBI in this regard. 
matter. 
13. The CIC allowed the second appeal and directed C 
the CPIO FED of the Petitioner to provide complete information 
in queries 1, 2, 9 and 1 O 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 D 
as it directs to provide complete information as p~r record on 
queryNo.1. 
14. In Transfer Case No. 97 of 2015, the Respondent 
sought following information from the CPIO of National Bank E 
for Agriculture and Rural Development under the Act of 2005, 
reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
SI. 
-Information Sought 
Reply 
No. 
1. 
The 
report 
made 
by 
NABARD Please 
refer 
to 
your 
F 
regarding 86 N.P.A Accounts for Rs. application 
dated 
19 
3806.95 crore of Maharashtra State April. 
2011 
seeking 
Co-operative 
Bank 
Ltd. 
(~ 
any information 
under 
the 
information of my appllcation is not RTI Act, 2005
which was 
available in your Office/Department/ received by us on 061h 
Dwision/Branch, 
transfer 
this May, 
2011. 
In 
this 
application 
to 
the 
concerned connection, we advise 
G 
Office/Department/ 
Division/Branch that the questions put 
and convey me accordingly as per the forth by you relate to the 
provision of Section 6 (3) of Right to observations 
made 
in 
Information Act. 2005. 
the Inspection Report of 
NABARD pertaining to 
H
524 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
MSCB 
which 
are 
confidential in nature. 
Since 
furnishing 
the 
information 
would 
impede the process of 
investigation 
or 
apprehension 
or 
prosecution 
of 
offenders, disclosure of 
the same is exempted 
under Section 8(1 )(h) 
of the Act. 
15. In Transfer Case No. 98 of 2015, the Respondent 
sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the 
Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
SI. 
No. 
1. 
Information Sought 
What contraventions and violations were 
made by SCB in respect ci RBI 
instructions on derivatives for which RBI 
has imposed penalty of INR 10 lal41s on 
SCB in exercise ci its powers vested 
-under Section 47(1)(b) of Banking 
Regulation Act, 1949 and as stated in 
the RBI press rel03se dated Apri 26, 
2011 
issued 
by 
Departmert 
ci 
Communications RBI 
Reply 
The bark was penaized 
along with 18 other bffiks 
fa" 
contravention 
of 
various 
instructions 
issued tty the Reserve 
Bank of India in respect 
of derivati..es, such as, 
faihre ·to cany out due 
diUgence in rega-d to 
suitabUtty 
of 
products, 
selting 
derivative 
products to users not 
having risk management 
poficies and not verifying 
the undertying/adequacy 
of undertying ffid eligible 
limtts 
under 
past 
performance route. The 
information 
is 
also 
availal:Je ·an oir website 
under press ref03ses.
2. 
. 3. 
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
525 
I 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
Aease pl'Olide us the cqiies/retails d all O:lrrplants are received 
the rorrplairts tied with RBI ~ainst SCB, by RlseJVe Bank of India 
aco.Eing SCB of ms-selling rerivaive an:J as they cx:nstitute the 
prcducts, !ah.re to call)' out due dligerre in third party infonratim, the 
regard to suitabHily d produ:ts,mt verifyirg infmration requested by 
the un:Jerlying'a:leq.iacy of unrerlying an:J you cannd be disclosed in 
eligible Ii nits under i:ast i:ertcrrrarre an:J terrrs d Soction 8(1 )(d) of 
varibus other 
ron-carpliance d 
RBI the ITTI Pd., 2005. 
instru:tion on ct!rivaives. 
Also, please provide the abO\e inforrratim 
in the follo\l\ing fonret 
. Dae d the corrpaint 
Naro of the carplant 
·Suqect matter d the corrpaint 
Brief 
clascrifiion of the 
facts 
an:J 
aca.sations rna:le by the corrplaint. 
/lJlj other infcrrration availa!je \l\ith RBI 
with respect to violaion/cortraventions by 
SCB of RBI instructions m derivatives . 
Aease provide us the copies of all the 
written replies/correspon:Jences rna:le by 
SCB \l\ith RBI and the recordings of all the 
ora subnissions rna:le by SCB to defen:J 
an:J explan the violaions/oortra..entims 
rraoobySCB 
.The aclim has been taken 
against the bark based m 
the findings of the Amual 
Rnanda lnsi:ection ~I) 
d 
the bank Wiich is 
con:Jucted 
under 
the 
provisions of Se::.35 of tre 
BRAct, 1949. The fin:Jirgs 
d 
the 
inspedim are 
corfdertial
in 
naure 
intended specifically for the 
sui:ervised ertities an:J fer 
corrective aclim by them 
The infonretion is received 
by us in fiduciary cai:adly 
disdOSLre of Wiich rray 
prejuddaly 
a'fect 
the 
ecmonic. interest of tre 
stat(!. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
526 
A 
4. 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
Please provide us the details/copies d the 
findings 
recordings, 
enquiry 
reports, 
directive orders file llotings and/or any 
information on the investigations conducted 
by RBI against SCB in respect d non-
compliance by SCB thereby establishing 
violations 11f SCBV in respect of non 
compliances 
d 
RBI 
instructions 
on 
derivatives. 
Please also provide the above information 
in the followng format. 
· 
Brief violations/contraventions made by 
SCB 
(2015] 14S.C.R. 
--------
--·-
As such the information 
camot be disclosed in 
terms d Section 8(1) 
(a) and (e) of the RTI 
Act, 2005 
D 
. In brief SCB replies/defense/explanation 
against each violations/contraventions made 
by it under the show cause notice. 
. RBI investigations/notes/on the SCB 
Replies/defense/explanations for each of 
E 
the violation/contravention made by SCB. 
F 
G 
H 
RBI remarks/findings wth regard to the 
violations/contraventions made by SCB. 
16. In Transfer Case No. 99 of 2015, the Respondent 
sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the 
Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
~ 
-
SI. 
Information Sought 
Reply 
No. 
1 . 
That, 
what 
action 
has 
the 1. 
Enquiry was carried 
department 
taken 
against out against ~cams/financial 
scams/financial 
irregularities 
of irregularities 
of 
Unfted 
United 
MercaAtile 
Cooperative Mercantile 
Cooperative 
Bank Ltd as mentioned in the Bank Ltd. as mentioned in 
enclosed
published news. Provids the 
enclosed 
pubflshed 
day to day progress report of the nevvs. 
action taken.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
527 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
,---~.---~~~~~~~~~~~-,-,--,-,--~c--~~~ A 
2. f\bte/explanation has 
2. 
· been called for from the 
bank vide wr letter dated 
That permission for qJering hem many 
. extension COl.flters was obtained by 
United Mercaitile O>operative B<11k Ltd 
from RBI. Provide details of expendture 
incurred· for constructir~i the extension 
col.fliers. Had the. bank follov.ed tender 
system for these constru::tions. if yes, 
p!Thlide details ri corcema:l tenders: . 
a"' Juy, 2011 regarding 
errors 
mentioned 
in 
enqJiry report. 
3. The cther information 
asked here is based on 
the 
condusions 
ri 
Inspection Report. 
We 
B 
woud . like to state that 
condusions found dU"ing C 
inspections 
are 
confidential 
and 
the 
reports are finalized on the 
basis 
of 
information 
received from banks. We 
received the information D 
from banks in a confident 
capacity. 
Moreo.ier, 
disdosure 
ri 
such 
information 
may cause 
damage to the banking 
system 
and 
financial 
interests· of the state; 
E 
Disclosure of ruch type of 
information is · exempted 
under Section 8(1 )(a) and 
(e) of RTI Act, 2005. 
Unttoo 
Mercantile 
Coq:ierative 
Bank 
Ltd. 
F 
was permitted to open 5, 
extension counters. 
The information regarding 
expendtt.ure incurred on 
constructicn 
of 
these G 
extension counters and 
tenders are not available 
with 
Reserve 
Bank ci 
India. 
H
528 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14S.C.R. 
A 
17. In Transfer Case No. 100 of2015, the Respondent 
B 
c 
sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the 
Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
-
. 
--
SI. 
Information Sought 
Reply 
No. 
1. 
Under which Grade The George Tcmn The 
classification 
of 
Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chennai, has banks into various grades 
been categorised as on 31.12.2006? 
are done on the basis of 
inspection findings which 
is based on information/ 
documents obtained in a 
fiduciary 
capactty 
and 
cannot be disclosed to 
outsiders. 
It is also 
exempted under Section 
8(1 )(e) 
of 
right 
to 
lnfonnation Act, 2005. 
18. The Appellate Authority observed thatthe CPIO, UBD 
D has replied that the classification of banks into various grades 
is done on the basis of findings recorded in inspection which 
are based on information/documents obtained in a fiduciary 
capacity and cannot" be disclosed to outsiders. The CPIO, 
UBD has stat~d that the same is exempted under Section 
E 8( 1 )( e) of RTI Act. Apart from the fact that information sought 
by the appellant is sensitive and canriot be disclosed, it could 
also harm the competitive position of the co-operative bank. 
Therefore, exemption from disclosure of the Information is 
available under Section 8( 1 )( d) of the RTI Act. 
F 
G 
H 
19. In Transfer Case No. 101. of 2015, with regard to 
Deendayal Nagri Shakari Bank Ltd, District Beed, the 
Respondent sought following
information from the CPIO of RBI 
under the Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
._ 
- "' -
--
SI. 
i 
lnfonnation Sought 
Reply 
No. 
. 
1. 
Copies of complaints received by RBI 
Disclosure of information 
against ilegal working of the said regarding 
complaints 
bank, 
including 
violations 
of the received from third parties 
Standing Orders of RBI as well as the would 
harm 
the 
provisions under Section 295 of the competitive position of a 
CompaniesAct, 1956. 
third party.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
529 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
Further such infcirmation is 
maintained in a fiduciary 
capacity and is exempted 
from 
disclosure 
under 
Sections .8(1 )(d) and (e) of 
A 
the RTI Act. 
B 
2. 
Action 
initiated 
by 
RBI (a) A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh 
against 
the· 
said 
bank, was 
imposed 
on 
including 
all Deendayal Nagri Sahakari 
correspondence 
between 
Bank Ltd. for violation of 
RBI and 
the 
said 
bank directives 
on 
loans 
to 
officials. 
directors/their 
C 
relatives/concerns in which 
they· are interested. The 
bank paid the penalty on 
08.10.2010. 
(b) 
As· 
regards 
correspondence 
between D 
RBI and the, co-operative 
bank, it is advised that 
such 
information 
is 
maintained 
by 
RBI 
in 
fiduciary 
capacity 
and 
hence cannot be given to E 
outsiders. 
Moreover 
disclosure 
of 
such 
information may harm the 
interest of the bank and 
banking 
system. 
Such 
information is exempt from 
disclosure under Section 
F 
8(1)(a) and (e) of the RTI 
Act. 
3. 
Finding 
of 
the 
enq~iry Such 
information 
is 
made 
by 
RBI, 
actions maintained by the bank in a 
proposed 
and 
taken 
fiduciary capacity and 
is 
against the bank and its 
obtained by RBI during the G 
officials-0fficial 
notings, course of inspection of the 
decisions, and final orders bank and hence cannot be 
passed and issued. 
given to outsiders. 
H
530 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 148.C.R. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
,~-~----------~--~ --
----:--
The disclosure of such 
information would harm 
the competitive pos~ion 
of a third party. 
Such 
information is, therefore, 
4. 
exempted 
from 
disclosure 
under 
Section 8(1)(d) and (e) 
of the RTI Act. 
As regards action taken 
against the bank, are 
reply at S. 
No.2 (a) 
above. 
Confidential letters received by 
Se~ reply at S. N0.2 (a) 
RBI from the Executive Director above. 
of Vaishnavi Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. 
complaining about the illegal 
working and pressure policies of 
the bank and its chairman for 
misusing the authority of digital 
signature for sanction of the 
backdated resignations of the 
chairman of the baRk and few 
other directors of the companies 
details of action taken by RBI on 
that. 
20. The First Appellate Authority observed that the CPIO 
· had furnished the information available on queries 2 arid 4. 
F 
Further information sought in queries 1 and 3 was exempted 
under Section 8(1 )(a)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act. 
21. Various transfer petitions were, therefore, filed 
seeking transfer of the writ petitions pending before different 
High Courts. On 30.5.2015, while allowing the transfer petitions 
G filed by Reserve Bank of India seeking transfer of various writ 
petitions filed by it in the High Courts of Delhi and Bombay, 
this Court passed the following orders: 
"Notice is served upon the substantial number of 
H 
respondents. Learned counsel forthe
respondents have
RESERVE. BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
531 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
no objection if Writ Petition Nos. 8400 of 2011, 8605 of A 
2011, 8693 of 2011, 8583 of 2011, 32 of 2012, 685 of 
2012, 263 of 2012 and 1976 of 2012 pending in the High 
·Court of Delhi at New Delhi and Writ Petition (L) Nos. 
2556 of 2011, 2798 of 2011 and 4897 of 201·1 pending 
in the High Court of Bombay are transferred to this Court B 
and be heard together. In the meanwhile, the steps may 
be taken to serve upon the unserved respondents. 
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 C 
Bombay are directed to remit the entire record of the 
said writ petitions to this Court within four weeks." 
22. Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel 
appearing for the petitioner-Reserve Bank of India, assailed 0 
the impugned orders passed by the Central Information 
Commissioner as illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned 
Counsel referred various provisions of The Reserve Bank of 
India Act, 1934; The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 arid The 
. Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and 
E 
made the following subrl)issions:-
1) The Reserve Bank of India being the statutory authority 
has been constituted under the Reserve Bank of India 
Act, 1934 for the purpose of regulating and controlling 
the money supply in the country. It also acts as statutory F 
banker with the
Govern·ment of India and State 
Governments and manages their public debts. In 
addition, it regulates and supervises Commercial Banks 
and Cooperative Banks in the country. The RBI exercises 
control over the volume of credit, the rate of interest G 
chargeable on loan and advances and deposits in order 
to ensure the economic stability. The RBI is also vested 
with the powers to determine "Banking Policy" in the 
interest of banking system, monetary stability and sound 
economic growth. 
H
532 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14S.C.~. 
The RBI in exercise of powers of powers conferred under 
Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 conducts 
inspection of the banks in the country. 
II) The RBI in its capacity as the regulator and supervisor 
of the banking system of the country access to various 
information collected and kept by the banks. The 
inspecting team and the officers carry out inspections of 
different banks and much of the information accessed 
by the inspecting officers of RBI would be confidential. 
Referring Section :;18 of the Banking Regulation Act, it 
was submitted that the RBI in the public interest may 
publish the information obtained by it, in a consolidated 
form but not otherwise. 
Ill) The role of RBI is to safeguard the economic and 
financial stability of the country and it has large contingent 
of expert advisors relating to matters deciding the 
economy of the entire country and nobody can doubt the 
bona fide of the bank. In this connection, learned counsel 
referred the decision ofthis Court in the case of Peerless 
General Finance and Investment Co. Limited and 
Another Vs. Reserve Bank of India, 1992 Vol. 2 SCC 
343. 
. 
IV) Referring the decision in the case of B. 
Suryanarayana Vs. N. 1453 The Kol/uru Parvathi 
Co-Op. Bank Ltd., 1986AIR (AP) 244, learned counsel 
submitted that the Court will be highly chary to enter into 
and interfere with the decision of Reserve Bank of India. 
Learned Counsel
also referred to the decision in the case 
of Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. 
Limited and Another Vs. Reserve Bank of India, 1992 
Vol. 2 sec 343 and contended that Courts are not to 
interfere with the economic policy which is a function of 
the experts.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
533 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
V) That the RBI is vested with the responsibility of A 
regulation and supervision of the banking system. As 
part of its supervisory role, RBI supervises and monitors 
the bank~ under its jurisdiction through on-site inspection 
conducted on annual basis under the statutory powers 
derived by it under section 35 of the Banking Regulation 
B 
Act 1949, off-site returns on key financial parameters and 
engaging banks in dialogue through periodical meetings. 
RBI may take supervisory actions where warranted for 
violations of its guidelines/directives. The supervisory 
actions would depend on the seriousness of the offence, c 
systemic implications and may range from imposition of 
penalty, to issue of strictures or letters of warning. While 
RBI recognizes and promotes enhanced transparency 
in banks disclosures to the public, as transparency 
strengthens market discipline, a bank may not be able D 
to disclose all data that may be relevant to assess its 
risk profile, due. to the inherent need to preserve 
confidentially in relation to its customers. In this light, 
while mandatory disclosures include certain prudential 
parameters such as capital adequacy, level of Non 
E 
Performing Assets etc., the supervisors themselves may 
not disclose all or some information obtained on-site or 
off-site. In some countries, wherever there are supervisory 
concerns, "prompt corrective action" programmes are 
normally
put in place, which may or may not be publicly F 
disclosed. Circumspection in disclosures. by the 
supervisors arises from the potential market reaction that 
such disclosure might trigger, which may not be 
desirable. Thus, in any policy of transparency, there is a 
need to build processes which ensure that the benefits G 
of supervisory disclosure are appropriately weighed 
against the risk to stakeholders, such as depositors. 
VI) As per the RBI policy, the reports of the annual financial 
inspection, scrutiny of all banks/ financial ~nstitutions are 
H
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
confidential document cannot be disclosed. As a matter 
of fact, the annual financial inspection/ scrutiny report 
reflect the supervisor's critical assessment of banks and 
financial institutions and their functions. Disclosure of 
these scrutiny and information would create 
B 
misunderstanding/ misinterpretation in the minds of the 
public. That apart, this may prove significantly counter 
productive. Learned counsel submitted that the 
disclosure of information sought for by the applicant would 
not serve the public interest as it will give adverse impact 
c 
in public confidence on the bank. This has serious 
implication for financial stability which rests on public 
confidence. This will also adversely affect the economic 
interest of the State and would not serve the larger public 
interest. 
D 
23. The specific stand of petitioner Reserve Bank of India 
is that the information sought for is exempted under Section 
8(1 )(a), (d) and (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. As 
the regulator and supervisor of the banking system, the RBI 
has discretion in the disclosure of such information in public 
E interest. 
24. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel, referred 
various decisions to the High Court and submitted that the 
disclosure of information would prejudicially affect the 
F economic interest of the State. Further, ifthe information sought 
for is sensitive from the point of adverse market reaction 
leading
to systematic crisis for financial stability. 
25. Learned senior counsel put heavy reliance on the 
Full Bench decision of the Central Information Commissioner 
G and submitted that while passing the impugned order, the 
Central Information Commissioner completely overlooked the 
Full Bench decision and ignored the same. According to the 
learned counsel, the Bench, which passed the impugned order, 
is bound to follow the Full Bench decision. The Commission 
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
535 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
also erred in holding that the Full Bench decision is per incuriam 
A 
as the Full Bench has not considered the statl:ltory provisions 
of Section 8 (2) of the Rightto Information Act, 2005. 
26. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the 
Commission erred in holding that even if the information sought 
for is exempted under Section 8(1) (a), (d) or (e) of the Right B 
to Information Act, Section 8(2) of the RTI Act would mandate 
· the disclosure of the information. 
27. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the 
basic question of law is whether the Right to Information Act, c 
2005 overrides various provisions of special statuteswhich 
confer confidentiality in the information obtained by the RBI.; If 
the Respondents are right in their contention, these statutory 
provisions of confidentiality in the Banking Regulation Act, 
1949, the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the Credit 0 
Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 would be 
repealed or overruled by the Right to Information Act, 2005. 
28. Under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Reserve 
Bank of India has a right to obtain information from the banks 
under Section 27. These information. can only be in its 
E 
discretion published in such consolidated form as RBI deems 
fit. Likewise under Section 34A production of documents of 
confidential nature cannot be compelled. Under sub-section 
(5) of Section 35, the Reserve Bank
of India may carry out 
inspection of any bank but its report can only be disclosed if F 
the Central Government orders the publishing of the report of 
the Reserve Bank of India when it appears necessary. 
29. Under Section 45E of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 
1934, disclosure of any information relating to credit 
information submitted by banking company is confidential and G 
under Section 45E(3) notwithstanding anything contained in 
any law no court, tribunal or authority can compel the Reserve 
Bank of India to give information relating to credit information 
etc.· 
H
536 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14S.C.R. 
A 
30. Under Section 17(4) of the Credit Information 
Companies (Re9ulation)Act, 2005, credit information received 
by the credit information company cannot be disclosed to any 
person. Under Section 20, the credit information company 
has to adopt privacy principles and under Section 22 there 
B cannot be unauthorized access to credit information. 
31. It was further contended that the Credit Information 
Companies Act, 2005 was brought into force after the Right to 
Information act, 2005 w.e.f. 14.12.2006. It is significant to note 
that Section 28 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 was amended 
C 
by the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005. 
This is a clear indication that the Right to Information Act, 2005 
cannot override credit information sought by any person in 
contradiction to the statutory provisions for confidentiality. 
0 
32. This is in addition to other statutory provisions of 
privacy in Section 44 of State Bank of India Act, 1955, Section 
52, State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks)Act, 1959, Section 
13 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of 
Undertakings)Act, 1970. 
E 
33. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a general 
provision which cannot override specific provisions relating to 
confidentiality in earlier legislation in accordance with the 
principle that where there are general words in a later statute 
it cannot be held that the earlier statutes are repealed altered 
F 
or
discarded. 
G 
H 
34. Learned counsel submitted that Section 22 of the 
Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot have the effect of nullifying 
and repealing earlier statutes in relation to confidentiality. This 
has been well settled by this Court in 
a) Raghunath vs. state of Karnataka 1992(1) SCC 
335 at p.348 pages 112 and 114 
b) /CIC/ Bank vs. SIDCO Leather etc., 2006(10) SCC 
452 at p. 466, paras 36 & 37
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
537 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
c) Central Bank vs. Kerala, 2009 (4)SCC 94 atp. 132-
A 
133 para 104 
d) AG Varadharajalu vs. Tamil Nadu, 1998 (4) SCC 
231 at p. 236 para 16. 
Hence, the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot override B 
the provisions for confidentiality conferred on the RBI by the 
earlier statutes referred to above. 
35. The Preamble of the RTI Act, 2005 itself recognizes 
the fact that since the revealing of certain information is likely 
to conflict with other public interests like "the preservation of C 
confidentiality of sensitive information", there is a need to 
harmonise these conflicting interests. It is submitted that 
certain exemptions were carved out in the RTI Act to harmonise 
these conflicting interests. This Court in Central Board of 
Secondary Education and Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay D 
and Ors, (2011)8 SCC 497, has observed as under:-
"When trying to ensure that the right to information does 
not conflict with several other public interests (which 
includes efficient operations of the Governments, 
preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, 
E 
optimum use of limited fiscal resources, etc.), it is difficult · 
to visualise and enumerate all types of information which 
require to be exempted from disclosure in public interest. 
The legislature has however made an attempt to do so. 
The enumeration of exemptions is more exhaustive than · F 
the enumeration of exemptions attempted in
the earlier 
. Act, that is, Section 8 of the Freedom to Information Act, 
2002. The courts and Information Commissions 
enforcing the provisions of the RTI Act have to adopt a 
purposive construction, involving a reasonable and G 
balanced approach which harmonises the two objects 
of the Act, while interpreting Section 8 and the other 
provisions of the Act." 
H
538 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14S.C.R. 
A· 
36. Apart from the legal position that the Right to 
Information Act, 2005 does not override statutory provisions 
of confidentiality in other Act, it is submitted that in any case 
Section 8(1 )(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 states 
that there is no obligation to give any information which pre-
B judiciously affects the economic interests of the States. 
Disclosure of such vital information relating to banking would 
pre-judiciously affect the economic interests of the State. This 
was clearly stated by the Full Bench of the Central Information 
Commission by its Order in the case of Ravin Ranchchodlal 
c Patel (supra). Despite this emphatic ruling individual 
Commissioners of the Information have disregarded it by 
holding that the decision of the Full Bench was per incurium 
and directed disclosure of information. 
37. Other exceptions in Section 8, viz8(1)(a)(d), 8(1)(e) 
D would also apply to disclosure by the RBI and banks. In sum, 
learned senior counsel submitted that the RBI cannot be 
directed to disclose information relating to banking under the 
Right to Information Act, 2005. 
E 
38. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing 
for the respondents in Transfer Case Nos.94 & 95 of 2015, 
began his arguments by referring the Preamble of the 
Constitution and submitted that through the Constitution it is 
the people who have created legislatures, executives and the 
F judiciary to exercise such duties
and functions as laid down in 
the constitution itself. 
39. The right to information regarding the functioning of 
public institutions is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 
19 of the Constitution of India. This Hon'ble Court has declared 
G in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the 
functioning of a healthy and well informed democracy is 
transparency. Mr. Bhushan referred Constitution Bench 
judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Raj 
Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865, and submitted that it is a 
H
RESERVE BANK OF !NOIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
539 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
Government's responsibility like ours, where all the. agents of A 
the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be 
but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to 
know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, 
by their functionaries. The right to know, which is derived from 
the concept offreedom of speech, though not absolute, is a 
B 
factor which Should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed 
for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion 
on public security. To cover with veil of secr.ecy, the common 
routine business is not in the interest of public. 
40. In the case of S.P. Gupta v. President oflndia and C 
Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149, a seven Judge Bench of this Court 
made the following observations regarding the right to 
information:-
"There is also in every democracy a certain amount of 0 
public suspicion and distrust of Government, varying of 
course from time to time according to its performance, 
which prompts people to insist upon maximum exposure 
of its functioning. It is axiomatic that every action of the 
. Government must be actuated by public interest but even 
E 
so we find cases, though not many, where Governmental 
action is taken not for public good but for personal gain 
or other extraneous considerations. Sometimes 
Governmental action is influenced by political and other 
motivations and pressures and at times, there are
atso 
F 
instances of misuse or abuse of authority on the part of 
the executive. Now, if secrecy were to be observed in 
the functioning of Government and the processes of 
Government were to be kept hidden from public scrutiny, 
it would tend to promote and encourage oppression, 
corruption and misuse or abuse of authority, for it would G 
all be shrouded in the veil of secrecy without any public 
·accountability. But if there is an open Government with 
means of information available to the public, there would 
be greater exposure of the functioning of Government H
540 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
and it would help to assure the people a better and more 
efficient administration. There can be little doubt that 
exposure to public gaze and scrutiny is one of the surest 
means of achieving a clean and healthy administration. 
It has been truly said that an open Government is clean 
B 
Government and a powerful safeguard against political 
and administrative aberration and inefficiency." 
41. In the case of the Union of/ndia vs. Association 
for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112, while declaring 
that it is part of the fundamental right of citizens under.Article 
C 19(1 )(a) to know the assets and liabilities of candidates 
contesting election to the Parliament or the State Legislatures, 
a three Judge Bench of this Court held unequivocally that:-
'The right to get information in a democracy is recognized all 
throughout and is a natural right flowing from the concept of 
D democracy (Para 56)." Thereafter, legislation was passed 
amending the Representation of People Act, 1951 that 
candidates need not provide such information. This Court in 
the case of PUCL vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399, 
struck down that legislation by stating: "It should be properly 
E understood that the fundamental rights enshrined in the 
Constitution such as, right to equality and freedoms have no 
fixed contents. From time to time, this Court has filled in the 
skeleton with soul and blood and made it vibrant. Since the 
last more than
50 years, this Court has interpreted Articles 14, 
F 
19 and 21 and given meaning and colour so that the nation 
can have a truly republic democratic society." 
42. The RTI Act, 2005, as noted in its very preamble, 
does not create any new right but only provides machinery to 
G effectuate the fundamental right to information. The institution 
of the CIC and the SI Cs are part of that· machinery. The 
preamble also inter-alia states" ... democracy requires an 
informed citizenry and transparency of information which are 
vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to 
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
541 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to 
A 
the governed." 
43. The submission of the RBI that exceptions be carved 
out of the RTI Act regime in order to accommodate provisions . 
of RBI Act and Banking Regulation Act is clearly misconceived. 
RTI Act, 2005 contains a clear provision (Section 22) by virtue 
B 
of which it overrides all other Acts including Official Secrets 
Act. Thus, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained 
in ariy other law like RBI Act or Banking Regulation Act, the 
RTI Act, 2005 shall prevail insofar as transparency and access 
to information is concerned. Moreover, the RTIAct2005, being C 
a later law, specifically brought in to usher transparency and to 
transform the way official business is conducted, would have 
to override.all earlier practices and laws in order to achieve its 
objective. The only exceptions to access to informaiion are 
contained in RTI Act itself in Section 8. 
D 
44. In T.C.No.94 of 2015, the RTI applicant Mr. P.P. 
Kapoor had asked about the details of the loans taken by the 
industrialists that have not been repaid, and he had asked about 
the names of the top defaulters who have not repaid their l9ans E 
to public sector banks. The RBI resisted the disclosure of the 
information claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (a) and 
8(1 )(e) of the RTIAct on the ground that disclosure would affect 
the economic interest of .the
country, and that the information 
has been received by the RBI from the banks in fiduciary F 
capacity. The CIC found these arguments made by RBI to be 
totally misconceived in facts and in law, and held that the 
disclosure would be in public interest. 
45. In T.C.No.95 of 2015, the RTI applicant therein Mr. 
Subhash Chandra Agrawal had asked about the details of the G 
show cause notices and fines imposed by the RBI on various 
banks. The RBI resisted the disclosure of the information 
claiining exemption under Section 8(1 )(a),(d) and 8(1) (e) of 
the RTIAct on the ground that disclosure would affect the 
H
542 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
economic interest of the country, the competitive position of 
the banks and that the information has been received by RBI 
in fiduciary capacity. The CIC, herein also, found these · 
arguments made by RBI to be totally misconceived in facts 
· and in law and held that the disclosure would be in public 
B 
interest. 
46. In reply to the submission of the petitioner about 
fiduciary relationship, learned counsel submitted that the scope 
of Section 8( 1 )( e) of the RTI Act has been decided by this Court 
in Central Board of Secondary Ecfucation vs. Aditya 
C Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, wherein, while rejecting 
the argument that CBSE acts in a fiduciary capacity to the 
students, it was held that: 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
" ... In a philosophical and very wide sense, examining 
bodies can be said to act in a fiduciary capacity, with 
reference to students who participate in an examination, 
as a Government does while governing its citizens or as 
the present generation does with reference to the future 
generation while preserving the environment. But the 
word 'information available to a person in his fiduciary 
relationship' are used in Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act in 
its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to 
persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference 
to specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be 
expected to be protected or benefited by the action of 
ttie fiduciary." 
4 7. We have
extensively heard all the counsels appearing 
for the petitioner Banks and respondents and examined the 
law and the facts. 
48. While introducing the Right to Information Bill, 2004 
a serious debate and discussion took place. The then Prime 
Minister while addressing the House informed that the RTI Bill 
is to provide for setting out practical regime of right to 
information for people, to secure access to information .under
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
543 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency A 
and accountability in the working of every public authority. The 
new legislation would radically alter the ethos and culture of 
secrecy through ready sharing of information by the State and 
its agencies with the people. An era of transparency and 
accountability in governance is on the anvil. Information, and 
B 
more appropriately access to information would empower and 
enable people not only to make informed choices but also 
participate effectively in decision making processes. Tracing 
the origin of the idea of the then Prime Minister who. had stated, 
"Modern societies (lre information societies. Citizens tend to C 
· get interested in all fields of life and demand information that 
is as comprehensive, accurate and fair as possible." In the 
-Bill, reference has also been made to the decision of the 
Supreme Court to the effect that Right to Information has been 
h.eld as inherent in Article 19 of our Constitution, thereby, o 
elevating it to a fundamental right of the citizen. The Bill, which 
sought to create an effective mechanism for easy exercise of 
this Right, was held to have been properly titled as "Right to 
Information Act". The Bill further states that a citizen has to 
merely make a request to the concerned Public Information 
E 
Officer speeifying the particulars of the information sought by 
him. He is not
required to give any reason for seeking 
information, or any other personal details except those 
.. necessary for contacting him. Further, the Bill states:-
"The categories of information exempted from disclosure 
F 
are a bare minimum and are contained in clause 8 of the 
Bill. Even these exemptions are not absolute and access 
can be allowed to them in public interest if disclosure of 
the inf,ormation outweighs the harm to the public 
authorities. Such disclosure has been permitted even if G 
it is in conflict with the provisions of the Official Secrets 
Act, 1923. Moreover, ba~ring two categories that relate 
to information disclosure'-- which may affect sovereignty 
and integrity of India etc., or information relating to Cabinet 
H
544 
. A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20.15] 14 S.C.R. 
papers etc.-all other categories of exempted information 
would be disclosed after twenty years. 
There is another aspect about which information is to be 
made public. We had a lengthy discussion and it is 
correctly provided in the amendment under clause 8 of 
the Bill. The following information shall be exempted from 
disclosure which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty 
and integrity of India; which has been expressly forbidden; 
which may result in a breach of privileges of Parliament 
or the Legislature; and also information pertaining to 
defence matters. They are listed in clause 8 {a) to (g). 
There are exceptions to this clause. Where it is 
considered necessary that the information will be 
. divulged in the interest of the State, that will be done. 
There must be transparency in public.life. There must 
·be transparency in administration and people·must have 
a right to know what has actually transpired in !lie 
·secretariat of the State as well as the Union Ministry. A 
citizen will have a right because it will be safe to prevent 
corruption. Many things are done behind the curtain. 
Many shoddy deals take place in the secretariats of the 
Central and State Governments and the information will 
always be kept hidden. Such practice should not be 
allowed in a democratic country like ours. Ours is a 
republic. The citizenry should have a right to know what 
transpired in the secretariat.
Even Cabinet papers, after 
a decision has been taken, must be divulged as per the 
provisions of this amendment. It cannot be hidden from 
the knowledge of others." 
G 
49. Addressing the House, it was pointed out by the then 
Prime Minister that in our country, Government expenditure both 
H 
at the Central and at the level of the States and local bodies, . · · 
account for nearly 33% of our Gross National Product. At the 
same time, the socio-economic imperatives require our
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
545 
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 
Government to intervene extensively in economic and social A 
affairs. · Therefore, the efficiency and effectivenel>S of the 
government processes are critical variables, which will 
determine how our Government functions and to what extent it 
is able to discharge the responsibilities entrusted. lrwas 
pointed out that there are wkl.espread complaints in our country B 
about wastefulness of expenditure, about corruption, and 
matter which have relations with the functioning of the 
Government. Therefore, it was very important to explore new 
effective mechanism to ensure that the Government will 
purposefully and effectively discharge the responsibilities C 
entrusted to it. . 
50. Finally the Right to Information Act was passed by 
the Parliament called ''The Right to Information Act, 2005". The· 
Preamble states:- . 
"An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime 
of right to information for citizens to secure access to 
information under the control of public authorities, in order 
D 
to promote transparency and accountability iri the 
working of every public authority, the constitution of a E 
Central Information Commission and State Information 
Commissions and for matters connected therewith or 
incidental thereto. 
WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established 
democratic Republic; 
F 
AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed 
citizenry and transparency of information which are vital
to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to 
hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable 
to the governed; 
G 
AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual 
practice is likely to conflict with other public interests 
including efficient operations of the Governments, 
H
546 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the 
preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information; 
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these 
conflicting interest while preserving the paramountcy of 
the democratic ideal; 
NOW, THEREFORE, it is expedient to provide for 
furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to 
have it." 
51. Section 2 of the Act defines various authorities and 
C the words. Section 20) defines right to information as under:-
"20) "right to information" means the right to information 
accessible under this Act which is held by or under the 
control of any public authority and includes the right to-
o 
(i) inspection of work, documents, records; 
(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of 
documents or records; 
(iii) taking certified samples of material; 
E 
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, 
F 
floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other 
electronic mode.or through printouts where such 
information is stored in a computer or in any other 
device;" 
52. Section 3 provides that all citizens shall have the right 
to information subject to the provisions of this Act. Section 4 
makes it obligatory on all public authorities to maintain records 
in the manner provided therein. According to Section 6, a 
person who desires to obtain any information under the Act 
G shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in 
English or Hindi in the
official language of the area in which 
the application is being made to the competent authority 
specifying the particulars of information sought by him or her. 
Sub-section (ii) of Section 6 provides that the applicant making 
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
547 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
_ request for information shall not be required to give any reason 
A 
for requesting the-information or any other personal details 
except those that may be necessary for contacting him. 
Section 7 lays down the procedure for disposal of ihe request 
so made.by the person under Section 6 of the Act. Section 8, 
however, provides certain exemption from disclosure of B 
information. For better appreciation Section 8 is quoted 
hereinbelow:-
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there c 
shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
( a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially 
affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, 
strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, 
relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an 
D 
offence; 
(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to 
be published by any court of law or tribunal or the 
disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; 
E 
(c) information, the ·disclosure of which would cause a 
breach of privilege of Parliament or!he State Legislature; 
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade 
secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which 
would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless F 
the competent authority is satisfied that larger public 
interest warrants the disclosure of such information; 
( e)
information available to a person in his fiduciary 
relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied 'G 
that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of 
such information; 
(f) information received in confidence from foreign 
government; 
-
H.
548 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G. 
H 
SUPREME;: COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger 
the life or physical safety of any person or identify the 
source of information or assistance given in confidence 
for law enforcement or security purposes; 
(h) information which would impede the process of 
investigation or apprehension or prosecution of 
offenders; 
(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of 
the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: 
Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the 
reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which 
the decisions were taken shall be made public after the 
decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or 
over: Provided further that those matters which come 
under the exemptions specified in this section shall not 
be disclosed; 
(j) information which relates to personal information the 
disclosure of which has not relationship to any public 
activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted 
invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central 
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information 
Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is 
satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the 
disclosure of such information: Prbvided that the 
information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament 
or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. 
(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official
Secrets Act, 
1923 (19of1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible 
in accordance with sub section (1 ), a public authority may 
allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure 
outweighs the harm to the protected interests. 
(3) Subjectto the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of 
sub section (1 ), any information relating to any 
occurrence, event or matter which has taken place,
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
549 
[M. Y. EOBAL, J.] 
occurred or happened twenty yeC!rs before the date on 
A 
which any request is made under section 6 shall be 
provided to any person making a request under that 
section: Provided that where any question arises as to 
the date from which the said period of twenty years has 
to be computed, the decision of the Central Government B 
shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in 
this Act." 
53. The information soughtfor by the respondents from 
the petiticirier-Bank have been denied mainly on the ground 
that such information is exempted from disclosure under C 
Section 8(1)(a)(d)and (e)ofthe RTIAct. 
54. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank 
mainly relied upon Sect.ion 8(1 )(e) of the RTI Act taking the 
stand that the Reserve Bank of India having fiduciary 0 
relationship with the other banks and th.at there is no reason to 
disclose such information as no larger public interest warrants 
such disclosure. The primary question therefore, is, whether 
the Reserve Bank of India has rightly refused to disclose 
information on the ground of its fiduciary relationship with the E 
. banks. 
55. The Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005, 
defines fiduciary relationship as "a relationship in which one 
person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the 
matters within the scope of the fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary F 
relationship usually arise in one of the! four
situations (1) when 
one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who · 
as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when 
one person assumes control and responsibility over another, 
(3) when one person has a duty to act or give advice to another G 
on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) . 
when there is specific relationship that has traditionally be 
recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and 
a client, or a stockbroker and a customer." 
H
550 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
56. The scope of the fiduciary relaiionship consists of 
the following rules: 
"(i) No Conflict rule-A fiduciary must not place himself in 
a position where his own interests conflicts with that of 
his customer or the beneficiary. There must be "real 
sensible possibility of conflict. 
(ii) No profit rule- a fiduciary must not profit from his 
position at the expense of his customer, the beneficiary; 
(iii) Undivided loyalty rule- a fiduciary owes undivided 
loyalty to the beneficiary, not to place himself in a position 
where his duty towards.one person conflicts with a duty 
that he owes to another customer: A consequence of this 
duty is that a fiduciary must make available to a customer 
all the information that is relevant to the customer's affairs 
(iv) Duty of confidentiality- a fiduciary must only use 
information obtained in confidence and must not use it 
for his own advantage, or for the benefit of another 
person." 
E 
57. The term fiduciary relationship has been well 
discussed by this Court in the case of Central Board of 
Secondary Education andAnr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay 
and Ors. (supra). In the said decision, their Lordships referred 
various authorities to ascertain the meaning of the term 
F fiduciary relationship and observed thus:-
G 
H 
"20.1) Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edition, Page 640) 
defines 'fiduciary relationship' thus: 
"A relationship in which one person is under a duty to 
act for
the benefit of the other on matters within the scope 
of the relationship. Fiduciary relationships - such as 
trustee-beneficiary, guardian-ward, agent-principal, and 
attorney-client -
require the highest duty of care. 
Fiduciary relationships usually arise in one of four 
situations : ( 1) when one person places trust in the faithful
RESERVE BANK OF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
551 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or A 
influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes 
control and responsibility over another, (3) when one 
person has a duty to act for or give advice to another on 
matters falling within the scope .of the relationship, or (4) 
when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally 
B 
been recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a 
lawyer and a client or a stockbroker and a customer." 
20.2) The American Restatements (Trusts and Agency) 
define 'fiduciary' as one whose intention is to act for the 
benefit of another as to matters relevant to the relation 
C 
between them. The Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. 36A 
page 381) attempts to define fiduciary thus : 
"A general definition of the wo.rd which is sufficiently 
comprehensive to embrace all cases cannot well be D 
given. The term is derived from the civil, or Roman, law. 
It connotes the idea of trust or confidence, contemplates 
good faith, rather than legal obligation, as the basis of 
the transaction, refers to the integrity, the fidelity, of the 
party trusted, rather than his credit or ability, and has been 
E 
held to apply to all persons who occupy a position of 
peculiar confidence toward others, and to include those 
informal relations which exist whenever one party trusts 
and relies on another, as well as technical fiduciary 
relations. 
The word 'fiduciary,' as a
noun, means one who holds a 
thing in trust for another, a trustee, a person holding the 
character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that 
F 
of a trustee, with respect to the trust and confidence 
involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor G 
which it requires; a person having the duty, created by 
his undertaking, to act primarily for another's benefit in 
matters connected with such undertaking. Also more 
specifically, in a statute, a guardi.an, trustee, executor, 
H
552 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 14 S.C.R. 
administrator, receiver, conservator, or any person acting 
in any fiduciary capacity for any person, trust, or estate. 
Some examples of what, in particular connections, the 
term has been held to include and not to include are set 
out in the note." 
20.3) Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition (Vol. 16A, 
Page 41) defines 'fiducial relation' thus : 
"There is a technical distinction between a 'fiducial 
relation' which is more correctly applicable to legal 
relationships between parties, such as guardian and 
ward, administrator and heirs, and other similar 
relationships, and 'confidential relation' which includes 
the legal relationships; and also every other relationship 
wherein confidence is rightly reposed and is exercised. 
Generally, the term 'fiduciary' applies to any person who 
occupies a position of peculiar confidence towards 
another. It refers to integrity and fidelity. It contemplates 
fair dealing and good faith, rather than legal obligation, 
as the basis of the transaction. The term includes those 
informal relations which exist whenever one party trusts 
and relies upon another, as well as technical fiduciary 
relations." 
20.4) In Bristol and West Building Society vs. Mathew 
[1998 Ch. 1] the term fiduciary was defined thus: 
"A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for 
and on behalf of another in a particular matter in 
circumstances which give rise to a relationship of
trust 
and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a 
fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty ..... A fiduciary must 
act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his 
trust; he must not place himself in a position where his 
duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his 
own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the 
.informed. consent of his principal."
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
553 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
20.5) In Wolf vs. Superior Court [2003 (107) California A 
Appeals, 4th 25] the California Court of Appeals defined 
fiduciary relationship as under: 
"any relationship existing between the parties to the 
transaction where one of the parties is duty bound to act 
with utmost good faith for the benefit of the .other party. B 
Such a relationship ordinarily arises where confidence 
is reposed by one person iri the integrity of another, and 
in such a relation the party in whom the confidence is 
reposed, if he voluntarily accepts or assumes to accept 
the confidence, can take no advantage from his acts C 
relating to the interests of the other party without the 
· latter's knowledge and consent." 
·21. The term 'fiduciary' refers to a person having a duty 
to act for the benefit of another, showing good faith and 0 
· condour, wh_ere such other person reposes trust and 
special confidence in the person owing or discharging 
the duty. The term 'fiduciary relationship' is used to 
describe a situation or transaction where one person 
(beneficiary) places complete confidence in another E 
person (fiduciary) in regard to his affairs, business or 
transaction/s. The term also refers to a person who holds 
. a thing in trust for another (beneficiary)~ The fiduciary is 
expected to act in confidence and for the benefit and 
advantage of the beneficiary, and use good faith and 
F 
fairness in dealing with the
beneficiary or the things 
belonging to the beneficiary. If the beneficiary has 
entrusted anything to the fiduciary, to hold the thing in 
trust o( to execute certain acts in regard to or with 
reference to ihe entrusted thing, the fiduciary has to act G 
in confidence and expected not to disclose the thing or 
information ~o any third party. There are also certain 
relationships where both the parties have to act i.n a 
fiduciary capacity treating the other as the beneficiary. 
Examples of these are : a partner vis-a-vis another partner H
•. 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
and an employer vis-a-vis employee. An employee who 
comes into possession of business or trade secrets or 
confidential information relating to the employer in the 
course of his employment, is expected to act as a 
fiduciary and cannot disclose it to others. Similarly, if on 
B 
the request of the employer or official superior or the head 
of a department, an employee furnishes his personal 
details and information, to be retained in confidence, the 
employer, the official superior or departmental head is 
expected to hold such personal. information in confidence 
c 
as a fiduciary, to be made use of or disclosed only if the 
employee's conduct or acts are found to be prejudicial 
to the employer." 
58. In the instant case, the RBI does not place itself ir:i a 
fiduciary relationship with the Financial institutions (though, in 
D word it puts itself to be in that position) because, the reports of 
the inspections, statements of the bank, information related to 
the business obtained by the RBI are not under the pretext of 
confidence or trust. In this case neither the RBI nor.the Banks 
act in the interest of each other. By attaching an additional 
E "fiduciary'' label to the statutory duty, the Regulatory authorities 
have intentionally or unintentionally created an in terrorem 
effect. 
59. RBI is a statutory body set up by the RBI Act as India's 
F 
Central Bank. It is a statutory regulatory authority to oversee 
the
functioning of the banks and the country's banking sector. 
Under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, RBI has 
been given powers to issue any direction to the banks in public 
interest; in the interest of .banking poiicy and to.secure proper 
G management of a banking company. It has several otherfar-
reaching statutory powers. 
H 
60. RBI is supposed to uphold public interest and not the 
interest of individual banks. RBI is clearly not in any fiduciary 
relationship with any bank. RBI has no legal duty to maximize
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
555 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
the benefit of any public sector or private sector bank, and 
A 
thus there is no relationship of 'trust' between them. RBI has a 
statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large, the 
depositors, the country's economy and the banking sector. 
Thus, RBI ought to act with transparency and not hide 
information that might embarrass individual banks. It is duty 
B 
bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and disclose 
the information sought by the respondents herein. 
61. The baseless and unsubstantiated argurpent of the 
RBI. that the disclosure would hurt the economic interest of the 
country is totally misconceived, In the impugned order, the CIC C 
has given several reasons to state why the disclosure of the 
information sought by the respondents would hugely serve 
public interest, and non-disclosure would be significantly 
detrimental to public interest and not in the economic interest 
of India. RBl's argument that if people, who are sovereign, 
D 
are made aware of the irregularities being committed by the 
banks then the country's economic security would be 
endangered, is not only absurd but is equally misconceived 
and baseless. 
62. The exemption contained in Section 8(1 )(e) applies 
to exceptional cases and only with regard to certain pieces of 
information, for which disclosure is unwarranted or undesirable. 
E 
If information is available with a regulatory agency not
in · 
fiduciary relationship, there is no reason to withhold the 
F 
disclosure of the same. However.where information is required 
by mandate of law to be provided to an authority, it cannot be 
said that such information is being provided in a fiduciary 
relationship. As in the instant case, the Financial institutions 
have an obligation to provide all the information to the RBI and 
such an information shared under an obligation/ duty cannot G · 
be considered to come under the purview of being shared in 
fiduciary relationship. One of the main characteristic of a 
Fiduciary relationship is "Trust and Confidence''. Something 
that RBI and the Banks lack between them. 
H
.556 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
63. In the present case, we have to weigh .between the 
public interest and fiduciary relationship (which is being shared 
between the RBI and theBanks). 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 
B 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) 
C 
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 
0 
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 
E .actions. 
F 
G 
66. Furthermore, the RTI Act under Section 2(f) clearly 
provides that the inspection reports, documents etc. fall under 
the purview of "Information" which is obtained by the public 
authority (RBI) from a private body. S.ection 2(f), reads thus: 
"information" means any material in any form,
including 
records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, 
press releases, circulars; orders, logbooks, contracts, 
reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in 
any electronic form and information relating to any private 
body which can be accessed by a public authority under 
any other law for the time being in force; 
67. From reading of the above section it can be inferred 
that the Legislature's intent was to make available to the general 
H public such information which had been obtained by the public
RESERVE BANK OF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
557 
. ·. [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
authorities from the private body. Had it b~en the case where A 
only information related to public authorities was to be 
provided, the Legislature would not have included the word 
. "private body". As in this case, the RBI is liable to provide 
information regarding inspection report and other documents 
to the general public. 
B 
68. Even if we were to consider that RBI and the Financial 
Institutions shared a "Fiduciary Relationship", Section 2(f) 
would still make the information shared between them to be 
aceessible by the public. The fads reveal that Banks are trying 
to cover up their underhand actions, they are even more liable C 
· to be subjected to public scrutiny. 
69. We have surmised that many Financial Institutions 
have resorted to such acts which are neither clean nor 
transparent. The RBI in association with them has been trying 0 
to cover up their acts from public scrutiny. It is the responsibility 
of the RBI to take rigid action against those Banks which have . 
been practicing disreputable business practices. 
70. From the past we have also come across financial 
institutions which have tried to defraud the public. These acts E 
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 gel'!eral public under the Right to Information Act.
71. We also understand that the RBI cannot be put in.a 
F 
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, which reads as under: 
G 
"Section 10(1) Severability -·Where a request for 
access to information is rejected on the ground that it is 
in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, 
then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, 
access may be provided to that part of the record which 
H
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
does not contain any information which is exempt from 
disclosure unaer this Act and which can reasonably be 
· severed from any part thatcontains exempt information." 
. 
. 
. 
. 
72. It was also contended by learned senior counsel for 
the RBI that disclosure of information sought for will also go 
B against the economic interest of the nation. The submission 
is wholly misconceived. 
73. Economic interest of a nation in most common 
parlance are'the goals which a nation wants to attain to fulfil its 
c national objectives. It is the part of our national interest, 
meaning thereby national interest can't be seen with the 
spectacles(glasses) devoid of economic interest. 
74. It includes in its ambit a wide range of economic 
transactions or economic activities necessary and beneficial 
D to attain the goals of a nation, which definitely includes as an 
objective economic empowerment of its citizens. It.has been 
recognized and understood without any doubt now that one of 
the tool to attain this goal is to make information available to 
people. Because an informed citizen has the capacity to 
E reasoned action and also to evaluate the actions of the 
legislature and executives, which is very important in a 
participative democracy and this will serve the nation's interest 
better which as stated above also includes its economic 
interests. Recognizing the significance of this.tool it has not 
F only been made one of the
fundamental rights under Article 19 
of the Constitution but also a Centrai Act has been brought 
into effect on 12'" October 2005 as the Right to Information 
Act, 2oo5. 
75. The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it 
G. · necessary that people have access to information on matters 
of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of 
Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters 
accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open 
governance' which is a foundation of democracy. 
H
RESERVE BANK OF lf\IDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY . 
559 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
76. But neither the Fundamental Rights nor the Right to A 
Information have been provided in absolute terms. The 
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 Clause 1 (a) 
are. restricted under Article 19 clause 2 on the grounds of 
national and societal interest. Similarly SeCtion 8, clause· 1 of 
Right to Information .Act, 2005, contains the exemption B 
provisions where right to information can be denied to public 
in the name of national security and sovereignty, national 
economic interests, relations with foreign .states etc. Thus, · 
not all the information that the Government generates will or· 
shall be given out to the public. It is true ttia~ gone are the days C 
of closed doors policy making and they are not acceptable 
also but it is equally true that there are some information which 
if published or released publicly, they might actually cause more 
harin than good to our national interest. .. if not domestically it 
can make the·national interests vulnerable internationally and D 
it is more so possible with the dividing line between national 
and international boundaries getting blurred in this age of rapid 
advancement of science and technology and global economy. 
It has to be understood that rights can be enjoyed without an¥ 
inhibition only when they are nurtured within protective E 
boundaries. Any excessive use of these rights which may lead 
to tampering these boundaries will
not further the national 
interest. And when it comes to national economic interest, 
· disclosure of information about currency or exchange rates, 
interest rates, taxes, the regulation or supervision of banking, 
F 
insurance and other financial institutions, proposals for 
expenditure or borrowing afld foreign investment.could in some. 
cases harm the national economy, particularly if released 
prematurely. However, lower level economic and financial 
information, like contracts and departmental budgets should· G 
not be withheld under this exemption. This makes it necessary 
to think when or at what stage an information is to be provided 
i.e., the appropriate time of providing the information which 
will depend on nature of information sought for and ·the 
consequences it will lead to after coming in public domain. 
H
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14S.C.R. 
A 
77. In one of the case, the respondent S.S. Vohra sought 
certain infomiation in relation to the Patna Branch of ICICI Bank 
and advisory issued to the Hong Kong Branch of ICICI Bank. 
The contention of the respondent was tliat the Finance Minister 
· had made a written statement on the floor of the House on 
B- 24.07 .2009 that some banks like SBI, ICICI, Bank of Baroda, 
Dena Bank etc., were violating FEMA Guidelines for opening 
of accounts and categorically mentioned that the Patna Branch 
of ICICI Bank Ltd. had opened some fictitious accounts which 
were opened .by fraudsters and hence an advisory note was 
C 
issued to the concerned branch on December .2007 for·its 
irregularities. The Finance Minister even mentioned that in 
the year 2008 the ICICI Barik Ltd. was also warned for alleged 
irregular dealings in securities in Hong_ Kong. Hence·, the 
respondent sought such advisory note as issued by the RBI to 
D ICICI Bank. The Central Information Commissioner in the 
impugned order considered the RBI Master Circular dated 
01.07.2009 to all the commercial banks giving various 
directions and finally held as under:-
"It has been contended by the Counsel on behalf of the 
E 
ICICI Bank Limited that an advisory note is prepared after 
reliance on documents such as Inspection Reports, 
Scrutiny reports etc. and hence, will contain the contents 
of those documents too which are otherwise exempt from 
disclosure. We have
already expressed our view in 
F 
express terms that whether or not an Advisory Note shall 
be disclosed under the RTI .Act will have to be determined 
on case by case basis. In some other case, for example, 
there may·be a situation.where some contents of the 
Advisory Note may have to be severed to such an extent 
G 
that details of Inspection Reports etc: can be separated 
from the Note and then be provided to the RTI Applicant. 
Section 10 of the RTI Act leaves it open to decide each 
case on its merits after having satisfied ourselves whether 
an Advisory Note needs to be provided as it is or whether 
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
561 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
some of its contents may be severed since they may be A 
exempted per se under the RTI Act. However, we find no 
reason, whatsoever, to apply Section 10 of the RTI Act in 
order to severe the contents of the Advisory Note issued 
by the RBI to the ICICI Bank Limited as the matter has 
already been placed on the floor of the Lok Sabha by the 
B 
Hon'ble Finance Minister. 
This is a matter of concern since it involves the violation 
of policy Guidelines initiated by the RBI and affects the 
public at large. Transparency cannot be brought 
overnight in any system and one can hope to witness 
accountability in a syster;n only when its end users are 
well-educated, well-informed and well-aware. If the 
customers of commercial banks will remain oblivious to 
c. 
the violations of RBI Guidelines and standards which 
such banks regularly commit, then eventually the whole D 
financial system of the country would be at a monumental 
loss. This can only be prevented by suo motu disclosure 
of such information as the penalty orders are already in 
public domain." 
78. Similarly, in another case the respondent Jayantilal 
N. Mistry sought information from the CPIO, RBI in respect of 
E 
a Cooperative Bank viz. Saraspur Nagrik Sahkari Bank 
Limited related to inspection report, which was denied by the 
CPIO on the ground that the information contained therein were 
F 
received by RBI in a fiduciary capacity and are
exempt under 
Section 8(1 )(e) of RTI Act. The CIC directed the petitioner to 
furnish that information since the RBI expressed their 
willingness to disclose a summary of substantive part of the 
inspection report to the respondent. While disposing of the G 
appeal the CIC observed:-
· 
"Before parting with this appeal, we would iike to record 
our.observations that in a rapidly urif9lding economics 
scenario, there are public institutions, both iil the banking 
H
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
and non-banking sector, whose activities have not served 
public interest. On the contrary, some such institutions 
may have attempted to defraud the public of their moneys 
kept with such institutions in trust. RBI being the Central 
Bank is one of the instrumentalities available to the public 
B 
which as a regulator can inspect such institutions and 
initiate remedial measures where necessary. It is 
important that the general public, particularly, the share 
holders and the depositors of such institutions are kept 
aware of RBl's appraisal of the functioning of such 
C 
institutions and taken into confidence about the remedial 
actions initiated in specific cases. This will serve the 
public interest. The RBI Would therefore be well advised 
to be proactive in disclosing information to the public in 
general and the information seekers under the RTI Act, 
o 
in particular. The provisions of Section 10(1) of the RTI 
Act can therefore be judiciously used when necessary to 
adhere to this objective." 
79. In another case, where the respondent P.P. Kapoor 
sought information inter alia about the details of default in loans 
E taken from public sectqr banks by industrialists, out of the list 
of defaulters, top 100 defaulters, names of the businessmen, 
firm name, principal amount, interest amount, date of default 
and date of availing the loan etc. The said information was 
denied by the CPIO mainly on the basis that it was
held in 
F fiduciary capacity and was exempt from disclosure of such 
information. Allowing the appeal, the CIC directed for the 
disclosure of such information. The CIC' in the impugned order 
has rightly obse.rved as under:-
G 
H 
"I wish government and its instrumentalities would 
remember that all information held by them is owned by 
citizens, who are sovereign. Further, it is often seen that 
banks and financial institutions continue to provide loans 
to industrialists despite their default in repayment of an
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 
563 
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
earlier loan." This Court in UP Financial Corporation . A . 
vs. Gem Cap/ndia Pvt. Ltd., AIR1993 SC 1435 has 
noted that: 
· 
"Promoting industrialization at the cost of public funds 
does not serve the public interest, it merely amounts 
to transferring public money to private account'. Such B 
practices have led citizens to believe that defaulters 
can get away and play fraud on public funds. There is 
no doubt that information regarding top industrialists 
who have defaulted in repayment of loans must be 
brought to citizens' knowledge; there is certainly a C 
larger public interest that could be served on 
.... disclosure of the same. In fact, information about 
industrialists who are loan defaulters of the country may 
put pressure on such persons to pay their dues. This 
would·have the impact of alerting Citizens about those D 
who are defaulting in payments and could also have . 
some impact in shaming them. 
RBI had by· its Circular DBOD No. BC/CIS/47/ 
20. 16.002/94 dated April 23, 1994 directed all banks to E 
send a report on their defaulters, which it would share 
with all banks and financial institutions, with the following 
objectives: 
· 
· 
1) To alert banks and financial institutions (Fis) and to 
put them on guard against borrowers who have F 
defaulted in their dues to.lending institutions; 
2) To make public the names of the borrowers who 
have defaulted and against whom suits· have
been 
filed by banks/ Fis." 
. 
G 
80. At this juncture, we may refer the decision of this Court 
in Mardia Chemicals Limited vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 
sec 311, wherein this court while considering the validity of 
SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by 
banks and financial institutions ih India, held :-
H
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
" ............ .it may be observed that though the transaction 
may have a character of a private contract yet the question 
of great importance behind such transactions as a whole 
having far reaching effect on the economy of the country 
cannot be ignored, purely restricting it to individual 
B 
transactions more particularly when financing is through 
banks and financial institutions utilizing the money of the 
· people in general namely, the depositors in the banks 
and public money at the disposal of the financial 
institutions. Therefore, wherever public interest to such 
c 
a large extent is involved and it may become necessary 
to achieve an object which serves the public purposes, 
individual rights may have to give way. Public interest 
has always been considered to be above the private 
interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be 
o 
affected but it cann0t have the potential of taking over 
the public interest having an impact in the socio-
economic drive of the country ........... " 
81. In rest of the cases the CIC has considered 
elaborately the information sought for and passed orders which 
E 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 
F 
Information Commissioner has passed the impugned orders 
giving valid reasons and the said orders,
therefore, need no 
interference by this Court. · 
G 
83. There is no merit in all these cases and hence they 
are dismissed. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Matters dismissed.