Central Information Commission
Mr.Anand Subramanian vs Reserve Bank Of India on 9 April, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000078/18306
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000078
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Anand Subramanian
SF-7 Greenery Apartments,
No 16 Plain street,
Bangalore- 560 001.
Respondent : Mr. Deepak Singhal,
PIO & Chief General Manager
Reserve Bank of India,
Department of Banking Operations and Development,
PSBD, RBI,
Central Office, Fort,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,
Mumbai - 400 001
RTI application filed on : 24/06/2011
PIO replied : 11/07/2011
First appeal filed on : 16/08/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 26/09/2011
Second Appeal received on : 04/01/2011
Information sought:-
1. My request for copies of the letters dated September 15, 2010 and March 14, 2011 written by Standard Chartered Bank to the Reserve Bait of India RBI pertains to a matter relating to a public institution. i.e Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd and which has experienced prolonged litigation for over 15 years.
2. The letters written by Standard Chartered Bank to the Reserve Bank of India is in the context of an examination that has been carried out by the Reserve Bank at India, which impacts various stakeholders, including the public at large and is not merely restricted to a private arrangement or contact.
3. Further, Standard Chartered Bank, being a foreign company that has operations in India does not have locus-stand for requesting to withhold the sharing of information, which otherwise is rightfully available to any Indian citizen under the RTI. In fact, the agreements that Standard Chartered Bank is referring to are probably contracts executed overseas and as such, may riot even be subject to jurisdiction in India.
4. As such, the very fact that a foreign company such as Standard Chartered Bank is operating in India under a cloud of secrecy and is not wanting to be transparent on its business made submissions to the RBI which it does not want the public to know about. As tile RBI has relied on the letters dated September 15, 2010 and March 14, 2011 written by Standard Chartered Bank to the Reserve Bank of India, It Is not open for Standard Chartered Bank to now suggest that such communication should be with held, when rightfully. It is available to an Indian citizen through an application made under the RTI.
5. The RTI Act puts an obligation on public institutions such as the Reserve Bank of India to maintain and facilitate the right to information for citizens of India. Under the enlarged model of the RTI that seeks for transparency and accountability, it is essential that contracts that are probably bad in law or are secretive in nature, do not take shifter under the guise of being Page 1 of 3 private arrangements or confidentiality causes and propriety- In fact, the very fact that the information has been disclosed to RBI provides a basis for the public at large to access all the information from the RBI, through the RTI.
6. It is also well Settled in various rulings by courts and by the Central Information Commission on the subject of whether information can be revealed under the RTI. As such, there is no ambiguity that information that is In the custody of public institutions such as, the RBI, cannot be withheld on the basis that it is private information and there is no exemption for not sharing the information that has been sought for legitimately under the RTI.
7. In view of the above, I request your goodself to enable us access the letters written by Standard Chartered Bank to the RBI, Which Is available for into access under the RTI.
PIO response:-
In this connection, it is advised that upon careful examination of the submissions made by the Standard Chartered Bank in this regard, and also by you vide your letter referred above, , I have come to the conclusion that the information sought by you is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. As such I regret my inability to provide the information sought by you.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information was given by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
I have gone through the papers and also considered the contentions of the appellant The appellant had in his original application requested for copies of the letters issued by Standard Chartered Bank dated September 15, 2010 and March 14, 2011 to the Reserve Bank as referred in para
21. (iii)(d) on page 10 of the order dated March 31, 2011 passed by Shri Anand Sinha, Deputy Governor of Reserve Bank of India. In this matter, the records show that the CPIO, DBOD declined to part with the copies of the letters issued by Standard Chartered Bank dated September 15, 2010 and March 14, 2011, claiming exemption under the provision of clause (e) of Section 8(1) of the Act. It is observed that the CPIO, DBOD came to the conclusion that the requested information is exempt under the Act after considering the submissions of Standard Chartered Bank in response to a notice issued by the CPIO under Section 11 of the Act regarding disclosure of information obtained by Reserve Bank from Standard Chartered Bank and the comments offered by the appellant challenging the submissions of Standard Chartered Bank vide his letter dated June 24, 2011. I agree with the CPIO that the said request for information of the appellant cannot be acceded to as the requested information is available to the CPIO in fiduciary capacity and as such exempt under clause (e) of Section 8(1). I find that the CPIO, DBOD has clearly stated the position with respect to the query raised by the appellant. In my opinion, the reply is adequate.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply received by the Appellant and FAA has passed unsatisfactory order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Anand Subramanian on video conference from NIC-Bengaluru Studio; Respondent: Mr. Unni Krishnan, Assistant Legal Advisor on behalf of Mr. Deepak Singhal, PIO & Chief General Manager on video conference from RBI Studio;
The Appellant has sought information of certain letters received by RBI from Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai. The PIO states that the letters basically relating to Standard Chartered Bank's customer which is held by Standard Chartered Bank in fiduciary capacity and hence RBI cannot disclose this. The PIO also states that besides this there are Escrow Arrangements of Standard Chartered bank with foreign investors and disclosing this information would also be exempt since it is held by Standard Chartered Bank in fiduciary capacity and the disclosure would lead to breach of commercial confidence of the foreign investors. The Appellant states that he should be able to get Page 2 of 3 information relating to this bank and claims that this information cannot be said to be held in a fiduciary capacity.
The Commission accepts that the PIO's claim that a Bank holds information about its customers in fiduciary capacity is correct and RBI cannot be directed to disclose this information. Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;' The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information who must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship.
In the instant case very clearly a fiduciary relationship exists, since customers of a Bank come to it because of the implicit trust they have; and they provide information to the Bank for their own benefit. Customers also have a choice of which bank they wish to approach. Hence unless a large public interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure. In the instant case no larger public interest has been demonstrated.
The Commission also accepts the PIO's claims that the information regarding the Escrow Arrangement of Foreign Investors is also covered by the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 09 April 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PRE) Page 3 of 3