Central Information Commission
Arjun Thapar vs State Bank Of India on 9 August, 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/SBIND/A/2022/636353
Arjun Thapar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
State Bank of India, Stressed
Assets Management Branch,
Zonal Office Building, Fountain Chowk,
Ludhiana-141001 Punjab .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08/08/2023
Date of Decision : 08/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17/03/2022
CPIO replied on : 22/03/2022
First appeal filed on : 25/03/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 12/04/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04/07/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.03.2022 seeking the following information:
"Account Statement of A/c number 35132004256 of SBI, SAMB from 01/05/2019 to 31/03/2020 and 01/07/2020 t0 31/03/2021."1
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 22.03.2022 stating as under:
"The requested information is related to third party account and would be covered under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, as the disclosure of it may harm the competitive position of a third party. Hence, information cannot be provided as it is exempt U/s 8(1)(d)."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.03.2022. FAA's order, dated 12.04.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO, held as under:
"In my view, the account is used for parking the proceeds of recovery In various accounts, before the said proceeds are appropriated to the respective accounts and the applicant is a third party to the information pertaining to transactions in the account. Moreover, the banks hold such information pertaining to credits made by various borrowers/guarantors, under fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the information sought by the applicant i.e. statement of account from 01.05.2019 to 31.03.2020 and from 01.07.2020 to 31.03.2021 is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as no larger interest is involved in disclosure."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.
Respondent: Inder Kumar Narang, AGM present through Video-Conference.
The representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of the RTI application and instant appeal of the Appellant and submitted that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information on his RTI application. He stated that the Appellant is entitled to obtain information under the RTI Act.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letters dated 22.03.2022 and 12.04.2022, they have categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, as the information sought contains data of different borrowers and held by them is fiduciary capacity. The disclosure of information would invade the privacy 2 of third party, therefore, the information sought is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application is related to Account Statement of A/c number 35132004256 of SBI, SAMB from 01/05/2019 to 31/03/2020 and 01/07/2020 t0 31/03/2021, etc. and the same is personal information of third party, hence, it 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.
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 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 3 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."
The Commission is of the view that RTI Act is meant to promote transparency, it was not intended to cause an invasion of the privacy of individuals. 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 application of the appellant.
No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4