Central Information Commission
Mr.Girish Prasad Gupta vs State Bank Of India on 11 November, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/SM/A/2009/002064AT
Dated, the 11 November, 2010.
th
Appellant : Shri Girish Prasad Gupta
Respondent : State Bank of India, Patna
s Matter came up for hearing on 10.09.2010 pursuant to Commission's notice dated 13.08.2010. Appellant was absent, while the respondents were represented by Shri Amitava Chatterjee, Asst. General Manger, Shri Arbind Kumar Dubey, Chief Manager, Shri Bipin Kumar Singh, Manager and Shri Varun Kumar, Manager.
2. It is seen that in response to appellant's query at Sl.No.3, i.e. the names, designations, etc. of the Bank officials of the State Bank of India at Begusarai Barouni Branch, information was provided to the appellant through CPIO's reply dated 07.11.2009. In the same reply, CPIO informed appellant that the information was 'NIL' as regards his query at Sl.No.4, which was regarding temporary, contract and casual workers engaged by the Barauni Branch of SBI.
3. The information in regard to these two queries is complete and, therefore, there shall be no further obligation to disclose.
4. The queries at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 were regarding the audit reports and the action on those audit reports. The position taken by the CPIO, in his reply dated 07.11.2009, that the audit record of the Branch contained all information about the functioning of that Branch and as such was CIC_SM_A_2009_002064_M_45631.doc Page 1 of 5 commercially sensitive. They, therefore, claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(d) for these two items of information.
5. I am in agreement with the respondents that Audit Reports of a Branch contained all information about that Branch, such as its internal functioning, its customers / accountholders, its commercial activities, turnover, etc., which is doubtless commercially sensitive. This information in the hands of the competitors of the Bank could create unforeseen disadvantages to the Bank. (P.C. Sekhar Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00712; Date of Decision: 26.10.2007).
6. In my view, therefore, respondents have rightly declined to disclose this information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
7. The fifth disclosurerequest of the appellant is for the recordings of the CCTV and the video cameras, which Banks installed to ensure security at their premises.
8. Respondents declined to disclose this information on the ground that it could compromise the security of the Bank's Branch.
9. I have given a careful thought to this somewhat unusual request of the appellant. His interest in the recordings of the surveillance cameras, which are related exclusively to the internal security of the premises, defies explanation. Nonetheless, since the request has been made, it needs to be evaluated.
10. Respondents have taken the position that since surveillance cameras and other technologies used for recording the goingson at a Branch office are exclusively related to the security of the Branch and hence were entitled to secrecy. They had not cited any provisions of the RTI Act in their support.
CIC_SM_A_2009_002064_M_45631.doc Page 2 of 5
11. In my understanding, this type of information directly attracts Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which deals with exemptions for information which, among others, would "prejudicially affect the ......................... the security ....... interests of the State...". The term 'State' is a comprehensive expression, which also includes the instrumentalities of the State. Supreme Court, in C.V. Raman Vs. Management of Bank of India and Ors; AIR 1988 SC1369, have clearly enunciated that nationalized banks come within the scope of the expression State in Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
12. From that standpoint, the security of a Bank Branch should attract Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act when the matter is about disclosure of information directly impacting security. The recordings of surveillance cameras and videography instruments installed at the Bank Branch for securityrelated functions, therefore, are entitled to the secrecy which the Bank has claimed.
13. Seen from another standpoint, i.e. from the angle of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, it becomes obvious that this variety of information is entitled to its confidentiality.
14. Section 2(n) of the RTI Act defines a public authority as follows:
(n) "third party" means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority.
15. It is to be noted that, this Section clearly states that a public authority ― whether a thirdparty or a respondent in given case ― shall be entitled to be a 'thirdparty' in the context of the information it holds. In other words, the term 'thirdparty' used in Section 2(n) of the RTI Act does not refer only to the party other than a respondent or an applicant in a given case, but also to the very respondent in that case. Thus, in the CIC_SM_A_2009_002064_M_45631.doc Page 3 of 5 context of a given case, a respondentpublic authority can be both a respondent and a thirdparty.
16. Section 11(1) of the Act speaks about "any information or record, or part thereof ....... which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that thirdparty...."
17. When Section 2(n) and Section 11(1) are read together, the unmistakable conclusion is that when any public authority holds an information confidentially, it can claim that disclosure should be authorized only after that public authority is consulted and if an identifiable public interest is established in disclosing this information.
18. Seen in the above context, the information relating to the recordings of surveillance cameras and videos installed in Bank Branches will doubtless qualify to be information held confidentially by the public authority under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. This disclosure can be authorized only if there is public interest.
19. From this standpoint as well, I find that the requested information cannot be disclosed as there is no public interest in its disclosure. On the contrary, if disclosed, this information in public hands can be detrimental to the interests of the Bank and its security and expose it to serious risks.
20. It is, therefore, my view that the information requested in these items of queries cannot be disclosed. The decision of the Appellate Authority and the CPIO, is upheld.
21. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
22. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
CIC_SM_A_2009_002064_M_45631.doc Page 4 of 5 ( A.N. TIWARI ) CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER CIC_SM_A_2009_002064_M_45631.doc Page 5 of 5