Central Information Commission
Rommel Rodrigues vs Reserve Bank Of India on 28 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/RBIND/A/2022/605636 +
CIC/RBIND/A/2022/605641 +
CIC/RBIND/A/2022/605645
Rommel Rodrigues .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Regulation, Central
Office, Central Office Building, 12th- 13th
Floor, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort,
Mumbai-400001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25/07/2023
Date of Decision : 25/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision
as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal (s):
RTI application filed on : 05/02/2021, 08/02/2021, 22/02/2021
CPIO replied on : 02/08/2021
First appeal filed on : 18/05/2021 & 27/08/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 29/10/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17/01/2022
Information sought:
CIC/RBIND/A/2022/605636 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.02.2021 seeking the following information:1
"(1) All instances where Section 45-IE of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 has been invoked by Reserve Bank of India to supersede the Board of Directors of a Non-Banking Financial Company.
(2) Copies of all documentary records, inter-Departmental and intra-
Departmental correspondence, statistical data, internal notings, approvals, and the minutes of all meetings relating to the supersession of the Board of Directors of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited, as informed in Press Release No. 2019-2020/1230 dated 20.11.2019 issued by Sh. Yogesh Dayal, Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India.
(3) Details of all the governance concerns and defaults by Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited which were considered to be the basis for supersession of the Board of Directors of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited by the Reserve Bank of India, as informed in Press Release No. 2019-2020/1230 dated 20.11.2019 issued by Sh. Yogesh Dayal, Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India (4) Copies of all documentary records, inter-Departmental and intra- Departmental correspondence, statistical data, internal notings, approvals, and the minutes of all meetings, maintained by or available with the Reserve Bank of India relating to the financial condition of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited for the period from March 2019 till 31st December 2019.
CIC/RBIND/A/2022/605641 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.02.2021 seeking the following information:
(5) Copies of all documentary records including but not limited to the minutes of meetings. recommendations, approvals, correspondence, reports, file tunings etc relating to the issuance of Notification No. DOR. 047/CGM (MM)-2019 dated 19 November 2019 by Manorajan Mishra, Chief General Manager, Resent Bank of India under Section 45-NC of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.
(6) Copies of all documentary records including but not limited to the minutes of meetings, recommendations, approvals, correspondence, reports, file notings etc. relating to the issuance of Notification No. 130R. 049/CGAI(MM)-2020 dated 18 November 2020 by Manoratan Mehra, Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India under Section 45-NC of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934.2
CIC/RBIND/A/2022/605645 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2021 seeking the following information:
(7) The date on which RBI received an application from the Administrator of DHFL, in terms of Rule 5 (d) (ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency and liquidation Proceedings of Financial Service Providers and Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2019 (Rules of 2019), for grant of its - no objection -
to the persons who would be in control or management of DHFL after approval of the proposed resolution plan.
(8) The date on which Reserve Bank of India granted its - no objection - in terms of Rule 5 (d) (iii) of the Rules. 2019, in respect of the persons who would be in control or management of DHFL, after approval of the proposed resolution plan.
(9) Copies of all documentary records, inter-Departmental and intra- Departmental correspondence, statistical data, internal notings, approvals, and the minutes of all meetings relating to the aforementioned - no objection - granted in terms of Rule 5 (d) (iii) of the Rules, 2019.
(10) Copy of the letter, order or any document by which RBI has conveyed the aforementioned - no objection - to the Administrator of Dewan Housing Finance Ltd."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the Appellant on 02.08.2021 stating as under:
"Point No.1:
You may refer to Bank's Press Release dated November 20, 2019 titled "Supersession of the Board of Directors and Appointment of Administrator--Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited", which can be accessed at www.rbi.org.in under the head "Press Releases".
Point No. 2, 3 & 4:
The information sought is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1) (a) & 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No.5:
The question is not specific, hence exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e), 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.3
Point No.6:
The collation and dissemination of the information will divert the resources of the Bank in terms of section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No.7:
The said application was received on January 25, 2021.
Point No.8:
The said NOC was granted on February 16, 2021.
Point No.9 and 10:
The information is exempt under Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.05.2021 and 27.08.2021 . FAA's order, dated 29.10.2021, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Adv. Arshdeep Singh representative of the Appellant present through Audio-Conference.
Respondent: Chandrajit Sahoo, General Manager, Siddhant, CAPIO and Shubham Gupta, Legal Officer present through Audio-Conference. The written submissions of the Appellant and the Respondent are taken on record.
The representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and instant appeals and submitted that till date the Respondent has not furnished complete and correct information to the Appellant.
He further reiterated the contents of the written submissions of the Appellant, which are reproduced herein below:
"It was not open to FAA to take observations/reasons given by CPIO at face value. The Impugned Order merely reiterates the reasons instead of independently assessing the queries.
8. The Compliance Letter does not state that CPIO has examined the nature of information and consequences of revival and reconstruction whereas Impugned Order holds that the CPIO has examined such information as aforesaid.4
9. Appellant's queries relate to a period before the initiation of CIRP and have nothing to do with the implementation of Resolution Process. The RTI application was filed in February 2021, much before the approval of Resolution Process.
10. The queries of the Appellant pertain to the basis on which RBI has formed an opinion regarding the supersession of the Board of DHFL and has nothing to do with Piramal or any other entity involved in the revival and reconstruction of DHFL. The Appellant sought financial details pertaining to an RBI-regulated entity and details based on which RBI formed an opinion about superseding the Board.
11. The information sought pertains to the exercise of the statutory duty of RBI. It is untenable that the performance of a statutory duty by RBI includes any information in the nature of commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property which would harm the competitive position of any third party.
12. In RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016) 3 SCC 525, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that RBI ought to disclose Information regarding financial institutions in the larger public interest and has no duty to protect the financial interests of the institutions.
13. Since the supersession of the board of DHFL was purportedly done in "public interest" in terms of Section 45-IE of the RBI Act, the information ought to be disclosed in "public interest", which is an exception to denial of information under Section 8 (1) (d) of the Act.Query No. 9 and 10
14. In addition to the grounds stated above, it is untenable that the 'No Objection' granted by RBI, in exercise of its statutory powers, for initiation of insolvency resolution process against DHFL would contain any information in the nature of commercial confidence.
15. DHFL is a 'systemically important' entity and RBI being the regulator ought to disclose the basis of granting a 'no objection' for initiation of insolvency resolution process against DHFL. The Supreme Court in Jayantilal Mistry (supra) has held that RBI ought to disclose information regarding financial institutions in the larger public interest.
16. No personal information of any individual or information that may cause invasion of privacy has been sought. Neither the Impugned Order nor the Compliance Letter state any reasons for claiming that the 'no-objection' granted by the RBI to initiate insolvency resolution process against a regulated entity would contain any personal information that may cause invasion of privacy.Query No. 5 and 6
17. The Impugned Order has taken the reasons cited by the CPIO at face value, disregarding Section 19 (5) of the Act, which places the onus of providing justification for denial of information on the CPIO.
18. The Remand Order had directed the CPIO to revisit the queries since an exemption under Section 8 (1) (e) of the Act cannot be taken when the information sought is "ex facie pertaining to the statutory notification issued under section 45- 5
NC of the RBI Act". The CPIO has, without fresh application of mind, denied information citing Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act once again.
19. Section 8 (1) (e) of the Act does not grant exemption to legal opinions and RBI is not in a fiduciary relationship with the lawyers who have given such legal opinion. The Appellant has sought minutes of meetings, recommendations, approvals, correspondence, reports, file notings etc., all of which are wholly separate from any legal opinion which may have been obtained by RBI. As such, there is no justification for denial of severance of information under Section 10 of the Act."
The Respondent, during the hearing, submitted that vide their letters dated 02.08.2021, complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record was provided to the Appellant.
The Respondent further reiterated the contents of the written submissions, the relevant portion of the same are reproduced herein below:
"It is submitted that the appellant Shri Rommel Rodrigues had filed three RTI applications bearing nos. RBIND/R/E/21/01122, RBIND/R/E/21/01194 & RBIND/R/E/21/01778 (copy enclosed and marked as Annexure- 'A' raising a total number of 10 queries pertaining to Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) and the CPIO had issued three replies dated March 08, 2021, March 23, 2021 & March 24, 2021 respectively (copy enclosed and marked as Annexure- 'B'. Being aggrieved with the replies of the CPIO in respect of 7 queries out of the total 10 queries, the appellant had filed three first appeals bearing nos.
RBIND/A/E/21/00435, RBIND/A/E/21/00436 & RBIND/A/E/21/00437 (copy enclosed and marked as Annexure- 'C' before the First Appellate Authority of RBI (hereinafter referred to as 'FAA').
10. The CPIO vide its letter dated August 02, 2021 has informed the appellant that the resolution plan for revival and reconstruction of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) was approved by the Committee of Creditors and NCLT and as such, the plan approved as per IBC and the Rules framed thereunder, at present, is under implementation. The CPIO has further informed that as the bid submitted by Piramal Group was approved by the NCLT to take over DHFL as going concern, furnishing of any information pertaining to DHFL at this stage may impact its revival and reconstruction. Consequently, it may also affect the commercial and financial interests of the entities involved in the process of revival and reconstruction of DHFL causing harm to their competitive position in the financial market. Thus, the CPIO has stated that the information sought is exempt under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.
614. The CPIO in his reply dated August 02, 2021 informed the appellant that the relevant office note contains 'legal opinion' obtained internally and its analysis and it is not possible to segregate the legal opinion from the office note. Further, it was mentioned by the CPIO that RBI has filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi [W.P. (C) 4562/2012] challenging the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) involving the question as to whether the legal opinion provided by the law officers of RBI is exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In that case, the Hon'ble Court has stayed the impugned order of CIC. The said Writ Petition is pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as on date. Therefore, the information (internal legal opinion) is exempt under Section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act, 2005,
19. The CPIO vide its letter dated August 02, 2021 informed the appellant that the resolution plan for revival and reconstruction of DHFL was approved by the Committee of creditors and NCLT and as such, the plan approved as per IBC and the Rules framed thereunder, at present, is under implementation. He further informed that as the bid submitted by Piramal Group was approved by the NCLT to take over DHFL as going concern, furnishing of any information pertaining to DHFL at this stage may impact its revival and reconstruction. Consequently, it may also affect the commercial and financial interests of the entities involved in the process of revival and reconstruction of DHFL causing harm to their competitive position in the financial market. Hence, the CPIO has stated that the information sought is exempt under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. The CPIO has further stated that the information as sought by the appellant may reveal the personal information of certain individuals which may affect their privacy. hence, exemption under section 8(1)(j) was sought, which was affirmed by the FAA".
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information on his above mentioned RTI applications. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the information sought by him is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. However, vide letter dated 02.08.2021, point-wise reply/information, as per the provisions of the RTI Act was provided to the Appellant. Further, the CPIO has also offered a detailed explanation by giving reasons for denial of information under Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission agrees with the stand taken by the Respondent that the information sought by the Appellant involves the information of commercial confidence and the same cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act under Section 7 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Further, the information sought by the Appellant relates to the personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and also held by the Respondent Public Authority in fiduciary capacity and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act .
The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no 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;.."
In this context, the Commission relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed. Hussain Abbas Rizwi:
(2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein in the context of exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Court had held that exemption provided under section 8 of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. The relevant observations are mentioned as under:
22......"Another very significant provision of the Act is 8(1)(j). In terms of this provision, information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual would fall within the exempted category, unless the authority concerned is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. It is, therefore, to be understood clearly that it is a statutory exemption which must operate as a rule and only in exceptional cases would disclosure be permitted, that too, for reasons to be recorded demonstrating satisfaction to the test of larger public interest. It will not be in consonance with the spirit of these provisions, if in a mechanical manner, directions are passed by the appropriate authority to disclose information which may be protected in terms of the above provisions. All information which has come to the notice of or on record of a person holding fiduciary relationship with another and but for such capacity, such information would not have been provided to that 8 authority, would normally need to be protected and would not be open to disclosure keeping the higher standards of integrity and confidentiality of such relationship. Such exemption would be available to such authority or department."
23. "The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its color from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection;
something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]."
24."The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision."
Further, in Central Board Of Sec. Education & Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [2011 (8) SCC 497] vide order dated 09.08.2011 examined and explained the expression 'fiduciary relationship', and have illustrated a few relationships where parties were involved in an act of fiduciary capacity including 'customers' in the following words:
"20. The term `fiduciary' and `fiduciary relationship' refer to different capacities and relationship, involving a common duty or obligation. 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 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 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 been recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client or a stockbroker and a customer."
"39. The term "fiduciary" refers to a person having a duty to act for the benefit of another, showing good faith and candour, where such other person reposes trust and special confidence in the person owing or discharging the duty. The term 9 "fiduciary relationship" is used to describe a situation or transaction where one person (beneficiary) places complete confidence in another 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 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 or to execute certain acts in regard to or with reference to the entrusted thing, the fiduciary has to act in confidence and is expected not to disclose the thing or information to any third party."
Further, the information sought is of commercially sensitive information. In the context of non disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, the decision in Naresh Trehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta (W.P(C) 85/2010) decided on 24.11.2014, was referred to, wherein it was held as under:
14. "....Such information would clearly disclose the pricing policy of the assessee and public disclosure of this information may clearly jeopardise the bargaining power available to the assessee since the data as to costs would be available to all agencies dealing with the assessee. It is, thus, essential that information relating to business affairs, which is considered to be confidential by an assessee must remain so, unless it is necessary in larger public interest to disclose the same. If the nature of information is such that disclosure of which may have the propensity of harming one's competitive interests, it would not be necessary to specifically show as to how disclosure of such information would, in fact, harm the competitive interest of a third party. In order to test the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act it is necessary to first and foremost determine the nature of information and if the nature of information is confidential information relating to the affairs of a private entity that is not obliged to be placed in public domain, then it is necessary to consider whether its disclosure can possibly have an adverse effect on third parties."
In view of the above ratio, the Commission is of the opinion that the reply provided by the respondent is in agreement and same is being upheld by the Commission.
The Commission is of the considered opinion that RTI Act is meant to promote transparency, it was not intended to cause an invasion of the privacy of individuals or to disclose the financial information/commercially confidential information of third party. Neither in the application nor in the appeal has the Appellant brought out any overriding public interest that will be served with the disclosure of the information. The Commission is in agreement with the action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI applications of the Appellant.
10Nonetheless, the Commission directs the Respondent to share a copy of their written submissions with the Appellant immediately after the hearing is over.
No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal (s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 11