Central Information Commission
D. N. Eswaradas vs State Bank Of India on 11 December, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/131248
D. N. Eswaradas ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
State Bank of India, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Chennai, Tamil Nadu
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.06.2024 FA : 02.08.2024 SA : 18.09.2024
CPIO : 12.07.2024 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 03.12.2025
Date of Decision: 10.12.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1) Whether Shri S. Prakasan and wife Smt. Pravisha Prakasan, Puthuparambath House, Kuruppan Kulangara P.O. Shertallan, Alleppey Kerala had taken any education loan for their daughter Ms. Aswani (No account details required).
2) The date of sanctioning the loan.
3) Whether these persons have repaid the loan Fully/Partially.
4) If not repaid, any what action is taken for the recovery of the loan, by the bank.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 1 of 6The information sought has not mentioned the Account Number or Branch in which the loan was sanctioned, we are not able to find with the details provided and searching for the loan in all our branches is difficult to be compiled in ordinary course of the business as doing the same would disproportionately divert the resource of the Bank which is exempted U/s 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.09.2024.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Natrajan, AGM, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant reiterated background of the RTI application inter alia submitted that sought information was denied by the CPIO claiming exemption of section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information as sought.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought loan details of third party and the same had been denied by their FAA vide order dated 05.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
5. I have dispassionately examined the application and the appeal of the appellant. I have also called for other relevant details in this regard. On a careful examination of all the issues involved. It is observed that the Appellant has not provided enough details in the RTI application, hence the CPIO has rightly disposed of the RTI Application under the relevant provision of RTI Act.
Moreover, the information requested by the Appellant was related to third party. The Public Authority shall not have any obligation to provide information which relates to third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the Page 2 of 6 individual and no over-riding public interest has been established by the appellant in seeking this information. Hence, the information as sought for is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the information is held by the Bank in fiduciary capacity and is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the Act.
A written submission dated 29.11.2025 of the respondent is reproduced as under:-
1. I, Natarajan.S, CPIO and Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chennai-600006 humbly submit the following for the kind perusal and consideration of the Hon'ble Central Information Commission.
2. At the outset, the Respondent denies all the allegations made in the Appeal filed before this Hon'ble Commission except those that are specifically admitted herein. The Appeal is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
3. The Appellant, Shri.D.N.Eswaradas submitted an RTI application dated 07.06.2024 to CPIO & Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chennai-600006 seeking the following information.
Query No.1 Whether Shri.S.Prakasan and wife Smt. Pravisha Prakasan, Puthuparambath House, Kuruppankulangara, Sherthallai had taken any education loan for their daughter Ms. Aswani (no account details required) Query No.2. The date of sanctioning the loan.
Query No.3. Whether these persons have repaid the loan fully / partially. Query No.4. If not repaid, any action is taken for the recovery of the loan, by the bank,
4. It is submitted that the CPIO vide letter No.RTI-215 dated 12.07.2024 furnished his reply to the Appellant as under
The information sought has not mentioned the Account Number or Branch in which the loan was sanctioned, we are not able to find the details provided and searching for the loan in all our branches is difficult to be complied in ordinary course of business as doing the same would disproportionately divert the resource of the Bank which is exempted U/s 7 (9) of the RTI Act 2005."
5. The Appellant filed his First Appeal dated 02.08.2024 being dissatisfied with the reply provided by CPIO for his RTI Application. The First Appellate Authority had duly considered the Appeal of Shri. D.N.Eswaradas as well as the reply of CPIO and Page 3 of 6 disposed of the First Appeal vide order No. RTIA No. AA1/1386 dated 05.09.2024 concurring with the views of CPIO and also rejected the Appeal under Section 8 (1) (1) & (e) of the RTI Act.
6. Not being satisfied with the reply fumished by CPIO, the Appellant had approached this Hon'ble Commission to direct the Respondent to provide the information sought by him.
7. Regarding the Second Appeal filed by Shri.D.N.Eswardas, we further submit that the Appellant has sought information from the CPIO related to third party le loan account details of Shri. Prakasan & Smt. Pravisha Prakasan, which is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the information is held by the Bank in, fiduciary capacity and is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the Act.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the FAA has provided appropriate order as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 05.09.2024. The Commission notes that on point no. 1, 3 and 4, the appellant has sought clarification and opinion on education loan taken by third party, which do not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011. The following was thus held:
"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority......."
9. Since, the appellant also sought personal details of third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, the FAA has claimed exemption under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Page 4 of 6 appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
10. In view of the above and in the absence of the larger public interest, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 10.12.2025 Page 5 of 6 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO State Bank of India, Premises & Estate Department, Local Head Office, 4th Floor, No.-16, College Lane, Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamilnadu-600006
2. D. N. Eswaradas Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)