Central Information Commission
Padmini Vora vs Reserve Bank Of India on 30 May, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second Appeal No.CIC/RBIND/A/2021/119333,
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/619045&CIC/RBIND/A/2021/615945
Trans Union Cibil Limited, ... अपीलकता /Appellant
Represented by Ms. Padmini Vora,
Mumbai
Equifax Credit Information
Services Pvt Ltd.,
Represented by Ms.Anisha
Agarwal, Mumbai
Experian Credit Information
Company Pvt. Limited,
Represented by Ms. Ami Parikh, Mumbai
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Reserve Bank of India
Department of Supervision, Centre-1
World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Colaba
Mumbai-400005
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
SA : 07-05-
FA : 29-10-2020,
RTI : 09-06-2020 2021, 21-04-2021 &
27-10-2020&03-11-2020
26-04-2021
Page 1 of 17
Hearing: 21-06-2021,
FAO : 22-12-2020&
CPIO : 01-10-2020 04-06-2021, 01-06-
07-01-2021
2021 &24-05-2022
ORDER
1. The above said matters have been listed before the Commission for hearing on 01.06.2021, 04.06.2021 &21.06.2021, wherein the Commission made following observations:-
"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records observes that the appellant has prayed for interim order restraining the CPIO/FAA from releasing the information sought in the RTI Application. In terms of the prayer, the second appeal is admitted and keeping in view the urgency, the operation of CPIO's reply and FAA's order is stayed till further orders."
2. Inview of the above, the aforesaid matters were thus adjourned and listed today for further hearing.Since, the cause of action has arisen from the same RTI application and orders of CPIO and FAA, therefore all the above matters are clubbed together in the interest of justice.
Hearing:
3. Adv. Pradeep Bakhru (Counsel for the Appellant) along with the appellant Ms. Padmini Vora attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri Vinod Kumar, Representative of CPIO/Deputy General Manager attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The original RTI applicant attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The written submissions of the parties are taken on record.
5. The Counsel for the appellant has referred the reply provided by CPIO and order passed by the FAA and submitted that the CPIO, RBI and FAA had violated the principles of natural justice, as they had not given any personal hearing to the Appellant before passing their decisions in the matter. No reasons Page 2 of 17 were given for not offering personal hearing neither in CPIO's reply nor in FAO. The appellant has filed the captioned Second Appeals challenging the Order issued by the Ld. FAA, RBI as the Ld. FAA has failed to observed that the applicant has sought disclosure of the said Inspection Reports which are exempted under section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005, more particularly section 8 (1)
(a), section 8 (1) (d) and section 8 (1) (j) inter alia since the contents of the said Inspection Reports sought to be disclosed contains confidential information pertaining to the Appellant, its customers as well as details of the Appellant's commercial transactions and details regards to Appellant's regulatory compliances, which bear no relation with public activity and/ or larger public interest, and disclosure of the same would cause prejudice to the Appellant and its competitive position in the market and will also affect customer's confidence in the Appellant. The disclosure of information sought will be violative of Article 14 and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The RTI Act was enacted to increase the transparency and accountability in functioning of the public authorities. The RTI Act does not apply to private entities such as the Appellant, as the Appellant is not covered within the definition of "public authorities" as defined under section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.
6. Also the Counsel for the appellant has referred the Full Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Commission passed in file no. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/152460& Ors. vide order dated 05.05.2022 wherein an identical issue of disclosure of Inspection Report, has remanded the matters to the CPIO for fresh adjudication by keeping in mind principles of natural justice. Moreover, considering the fact that several banks have filed inter alia Writ Petition No. 1159 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia impugning the disclosure of their Inspection Reports by RBI under the RTI Act, this Hon'ble Commission has also held that any decision by the CPIO in respect of disclosure of Inspection Report would amount to pre-judging the issues pending the admitted Writ Petition (s) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. The Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the CPIO & FAA did not pass a reasoned order due to which the appellant could not be able to file proper appeal. Hence, it has restricted their right to challenge the impugned Page 3 of 17 order appropriately before the Commission on issues of facts or legal infirmities.
8. The representative of the Reserve Bank of India while presenting their case inter alia submitted that the applicant, Shri Basant Soni, vide above RTI applications inter alia, sought, copy of Audit/ Inspection Reports from year 2007-2019 etc. They further submitted that the then CPIO issued the notice under Section 11(1) read with Section 11(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to the third party i.e. appellant informing that RBI was required to disclose the information sought by Shri Basant Soni, enabling appellant to make written submission within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to whether the information sought by the applicant might be disclosed or not along with reasons for the same. After considering the response from Appellant, the CPIO decided to disclose the detail of Audit/ Inspection Reports from year 2007-2019etc. to the applicant. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RBI vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry & Ors (2016) 3 SCC 525 observed that :-
"RBI is clearly not in any fiduciary relationship with any bank. 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 applicant."
The FAA duly considered the contentions of the appellant. FAA observed that the interim order of the Supreme Court as quoted by the appellant was against disclosure of inspection reports/ risk assessment reports etc. of banks including State Bank of India and not of a credit information company like the appellant. As such, it would not be possible for the appellant to take benefit of that order. As regards, appellant's contention that it is not a public authority as defined in the Act, FAA observed that RBI which holds information is a public authority. RBI collects information from banks and other entities regulated by it, including the appellant in exercise of its power under the relevant statute. Further due to Covid-19 pandemic, their office was working with limited resources which caused delay in providing reply/ issuing notice under section 11 of RTI Act.
9. The original applicant submitted that the respondent Reserve Bank of India was duty bound to disclose the information sought by the applicant in his Page 4 of 17 above RTI applications as per Jayantilal Mistry caseand in compliance of this order should suo moto upload these reports under section 4 (1) of RTI Act. He stated that the Reserve Bank of India was creator of reports and it acted as a guardian of public interest. Therefore, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 16.12.2015 and as per order dated 28.04.2021 complete information should be disclosed to the RTI applicant. He stated that there was no ambiguity in Jayantilal Mistry's case and there was a larger public interest in disclosing the information. He has further referred para no. 96 of one judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Namit Sharma vs. Union of India" wherein it was held that:-
"This takes us to discuss the kind of duties and responsibilities that such high post is expected to perform. Their functions are adjudicatory in nature. They are required to give notice to the parties, offer them the opportunity of hearing and pass reasoned orders. The orders of the appellate authority and the Commission have to be supported by adequate reasoning as they grant relief to one party, despite opposition by the other or reject the request for information made in exercise of a statutory right."
Therefore, they have followed the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment while passing the orders. Further he has contested the delay caused by the CPIO while issuing notice under section 11 of RTI Act as well as the FAA while deciding the first appeal. Therefore there was an undue delay in completing the proceedings on the part of CPIO and FAA. He also alleged that the respondent is in connivance with the third party, therefore an unreasonable delay has been caused.
Decision:
10. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the original RTI applicant has sought information regarding copy of Audit/ Inspection Reports from the year 2007 to 2019. Further, he has asked to publish these reports on the website of the RBI in terms of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RBI vs. Page 5 of 17 Jayantilal Mistry (2016) (3) SCC (525) and Girish Mittal vs. Parvati vs. Sundaram (2019 SCC Online SC 607).The CPIO, Reserve Bank of India had issued notices under Section 11(1) and 11(3) to the appellant intending to disclose the information. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the appellant had filed first appeal with the First Appellate Authority. The FAA had also dismissed the first appeal of the appellant summarily. The Commission observes that the RTI applicant had insisted for disclosure of information as per Jayantilal N. Mistry's case and as per section 4 (1) of RTI Act. The Appellant contested that the information sought as a whole is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (a), Section 8(1) (d) and 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Despite the Appellant's specific requests, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided in the matter. The Ld. FAA has erred in concluding that it was not necessary to provide personal hearing in the matter. This is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. He has further contended that the CPIO and FAA while passing unreasoned order have denied the right of the appellant to file appeal on merits pointing out their errors/ legal infirmities in rejecting their objections.
11. The contention of the original applicant is that although the CPIO and FAA has passed a reasoned order and the mandate of Supreme Court's judgment duly considered while passing the order in the above RTI Applications, but on every stage whether issuing notice under section 11 of the RTI Act or taking decision on response filed to the notice under section 11 of the RTI Act, the CPIO did not adhere with the prescribed time limits as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Even FAA took unreasonably long time in deciding the first appeal and suo moto instead of disclosing information gave extra 50 days' time to file second appeal and made a suggestion to take stay order on disclosing the requested information from the appropriate forum. He has further alleged that considerable delay has been caused by the respondent as they are in connivance with the third party. In response, the RBI submitted that due to Covid-19 pandemic, they were working with limited resources during that time; still they have expeditiously decided the above RTI Applications. They had to provide reasonable time to the appellant to file second appeal as per the principles of Natural Justice. Therefore, they have provided reasoned and fair Page 6 of 17 order while dealing with the above RTI Applications in view of Jayantilal Mistry's case along with other judicial pronouncement of Supreme Court.
12. The Commission observes that it is already a settled position in Jayantilal Mistry's case that RBI is not fiduciary in relationship with the banks and financial institution irrespective of these being public or private entities. These Credit Rating Financial Institutions take transactional, financial & operational data of clients to analyze their functioning and rate them within the broad framework. Hence, inspection/ audit reports of these institutions will reflect on such data of clients viz. credit & repayment history, names and information of their operational and financial transactions etc, entrusted by the clients to their respective Credit Rating Financial Institutions which may get interspersed in these reports and have to be examined in the light of para nos. 77 of the same judgment and various other judicial pronouncements protecting right to privacy and protection of commercial interests. Therefore, the CPIO, Reserve Bank of India has rightly invited objections but not expressed his reasoned view that to what extent he is agreeing or disagreeing by the objections of the Appellant while sharing the proposed redacted report for disclosure in some cases. The Commission is of the view that these reports are not a simple set of information as inspection and audit report consists of data about client including their credit, financial & operational transactions etc, its analysis, judgment and observations on the data provided by the clients as well as of institutions on their functioning, regulatory compliance, deficiencies and strengths, suggestions for course of correction, penal action as per provisions of the law etc., and may be much more which the Commission may not be in a position appreciate in toto at this stage.
13. The Commission further noted the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Reserve Bank of India V/s Jayantilal N. Mistry case clarifies that the functional relationship between a regulator and a regulated entity is not fiduciary. On the other hand the relationship is based on a statutory obligation to ensure operational discipline and support remedial framework. Hence its observations, guidance, directions or remedial actions are an outcome of own functioning based on the analysis of the data shared by the regulated entity.
14. Keeping in view the broader nature of business carried out between a customer and the bank/ financial institution, the Commission takes note of the Page 7 of 17 observations passed by the Supreme Court 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 "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 Page 8 of 17 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."
While taking into consideration the fact that the customers give their financial information even to the Credit Rating Institutions in confidence and with complete faith that may not be divulged as a result of disclosure by others, the following observations passed by the Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi and Anr.[ (2012) 13 SCC 61] may be relied upon:
"The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the "consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to the 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. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality. The information may come to knowledge of the authority as a result of disclosure by others who give that information in confidence and with complete faith, integrity and fidelity. Secrecy of such information shall be maintained, thus, bringing it within the ambit of fiduciary capacity. Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in Page 9 of 17 the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India."
As emphasized by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in its judgment dated 13.11.2019, right to privacy and right to information have to be treated as co-equals and none can take precedence over the other, rather a balance needs to be struck. The following observations may also be relied upon in that regard:
"42. Privacy, it is uniformly observed in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra), is essential for liberty and dignity. Therefore, individuals have the need to preserve an intrusion-free zone for their personality and family. This facilitates individual freedom. On the question of invasion of personal liberty, the main judgment has referred to a three-fold requirement in the form of - (i) legality, which postulates the existence of law (RTI Act in the present case); (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate State aim; and
(iii) proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means to be adopted to achieve them. The third requirement, we would observe, is achieved in the present case by Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act and the RTI Act cannot be faulted on this ground. The RTI Act also defines the legitimate aim, that is a public interest in the dissemination of information which can be confidential or private (or held in a fiduciary relationship) when larger public interest or public interest in disclosure outweighs the protection or any possible harm or injury to the interest of the third party."
Further in K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [(2017) 10 SCC 1], the Supreme Court observed as under:
"623. An individual has a right to protect his reputation from being unfairly harmed and such protection of reputation needs to exist not only against falsehood but also certain truths. It cannot be said that a more accurate judgment about people can be facilitated by knowing private details about their lives - people judge us badly, they judge us in haste, Page 10 of 17 they judge out of context, they judge without hearing the whole story and they judge with hypocrisy. Privacy lets people protect themselves from these troublesome judgments."
15. In view of the above, the Commission is of the view that these judicial pronouncements have to be factored while deliberating all the claims of the applicant for complete disclosure which may include inadvertent disclosure of financial, transactional and operational data of the clients of the Bank etc. Further, in NareshTrehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta [W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 & 5560/2011], the Delhi High Court made the following observations:
"...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."
The Supreme Court while deciding upon issues relating to personal information of an individual in terms of his income tax returns passed the following observations in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commr. [(2013) 1 SCC 212] :
"12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show-cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and Page 11 of 17 also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have been accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is:
whether the abovementioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.
14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
The aforementioned observations make it clear that the data has been shared by the individuals with the Income Tax Department which is seeking such Page 12 of 17 information as a statutory authority but while analyzing and assessing their income keeps this data secured in the fiduciary capacity and hence it is protected from disclosure. It is applicable not only for individuals but for other legal entities recognizable under Income Tax Act. Further, it has been observed that the information in the hands of public authority even in the discharge of statutory obligations is protected under fiduciary relationship.
16. There are apparently two set of such information which have been shared by the Credit Rating Institutions with the regulator under statutory obligation. First is the information/data of clients relating to their business/commercial operations, financial transactions, business and commercial strategy which is shared by clients with financial institutions in full trust and confidence and is held by them in fiduciary capacity, protected from disclosure under the RTI Act in their hands. Second set is the information relating to business strategy, decisions, transactions, other operational data etc. of financial institution which may have bearing on their competitive position and also enjoys the exemption from disclosure in their hands, even if it is a public authority or otherwise, under the RTI Act. The Commission is of the view that the exemption of disclosure of certain information under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the hands of financial institutions does not evaporate once such data/information is shared, in good faith and trust, with the regulator under statutory obligations. This aspect is not the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayantilal Mistry's judgment and decision of the regulator to consider redacting such data/information while disclosing the reports is to be aligned with this and other judicial pronouncements of Supreme Court and High Courts covering such aspects.
17. The Commission further observes that by passing such orders simplicitors shows non-application of mind but also ensure that their orders are may not be questioned further with specific facts and points of law. Rejection or acceptance of the specific objections raised by them was not spelt out in the order which have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to them.The Commission further observes that the CPIO is at best free to take decisions on disclosure of information as per provision of RTI Act, 2005 giving a reasoned orders on the objections filed. The CPIO while issuing notice under Section 11 of the RTI Act has given the opportunity to the Appellant to file their Page 13 of 17 objections, if any, against disclosure of information sought but has not found it necessary to give them an opportunity of hearing. While not doing so, the CPIO has not passed any reasoned order covering his deliberations on their objections, his understanding of law or jurisprudence in deciding specific objections, in favor of disclosure etc. Order passed by the CPIO is cryptic, without any reference to objections raised by the Appellant. Similarly, the FAA instead of passing a speaking order has also given a cryptic orderto the Appellant. The CPIO and the FAA are expected to apply their mind before issuing the order of intent of disclosing the information. Further, no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the appellant nor speaking order have been passed by FAA for not giving opportunity of hearing or elaborating reasons for accepting /not accepting their objections in his decision in the appeal. The Commission is of the view that every objection should be dealt and rejected/accepted with a reason and reasons for not giving opportunity of personal hearing should be well reasoned too in view of wider implications.
18. The Commission observes that rightful claims of the RTI applicant has to be adjudicated in the light of specific objections filed by the Institution, various judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts providing guidance on such matters. Opportunity of hearing should necessarily be provided and orders passed by the CPIO and the FAA otherwise if denied or not given reasoned, speaking and clear. In the present case, order by CPIO should enumerate the principles for disclosure or non-disclosure of audit/ inspection reports or part thereof which may include personal information, commercially sensitive information of clients or institution and hence specifically excluded disclosures under various Acts, etc.
19. The Commission in this context refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in decision in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 it has held that:
"The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."Page 14 of 17
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
5..............................The Act provides that the first appellate authority would be an officer senior in rank to the CPIO. Thus, the appellate authority, as per provisions of the Act, would be an officer in a commanding position vis a vis' the CPIO. Nevertheless, if, in any case, the CPIO does not implement the order passed by the appellate authority and the appellate authority feels that intervention of higher authority is required to get his order implemented, he should bring the matter to the notice of the officer in the public authority competent to take against the CPIO. Such competent officer shall take necessary action so as to ensure implementation of the RTI Act. "
20. The Commission has also taken a detailed view in file nos. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/152460 & Ors. dated 05.05.2022 wherein issues of redaction, ratio of Jayantilal Mistry case and other related issues are discussed in detail. Perusal of the relevant paragraphs in Jayantilal Mistry judgment make it clear that the fundamental rights enshrined upon the citizens in form of right to information are not absolute and that the right to information may not draw precedence over right to privacy. Therefore, the Courts need to strike a balance between the rights as well as protections guaranteed to a citizen under Article 19 of the Constitution. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the disclosure of information relating to banks and financial institutions may be allowed taking into account the circumstances and nature of information sought for and not in a blanket manner. The Commission advised the CPIO to consider taking the relevant references from the said order while deciding the cases.
Page 15 of 1721. The Commission has already outlined the deficiency in the conduct of the CPIO/FAA while hearing such matters and hence is of the opinion that due care has to be taken by according opportunity of personal hearing and making reasoned order with reference to the objections in the hands of the CPIO and later in the hands of FAA, if any appeal is preferred. Hence, the CPIO will be required to adjudicate such RTI applications in the light of the observations of the Commission afresh. The Commission also expects that the CPIO will take view on various objections filed by the Appellant and submissions made by applicant to reach the decision in favor or against on case to case basis. He has to factor the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayantilal Mistry case, Commission's judgment dated 05.05.2022 and other relevant judgments, some of which have been referred in this order as well. Hence, with these observations the order passed by the CPIO and FAA in this matter is set aside and the case is being remanded to the CPIO for adjudication afresh. The above directions of the Commission should be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case, the appellant/applicant is aggrieved with the order of the CPIO, they are at the liberty to file first appeal before the First Appellate Authority and afterwards second appeal before the Commission.
22. With the above observations, all the above appeals are hereby disposed of.
23. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 27-05-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 16 of 17
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Reserve Bank of India
Department of Supervision, Centre-1
World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Colaba
Mumbai-400005
2. Ms. Padmini Vora
Trans Union Cibil Limited
3. Ms. Anisha Agarwal
Equifax Credit Information Services Pvt Ltd
4. Ms. Ami Parikh
Experian Credit Information Company Pvt. Ltd.
5. Basant Kumar Soni
(Original Applicant)
Page 17 of 17