Central Information Commission
Ettumanoor Suresh Kumar V. vs State Bank Of India on 27 January, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/139549
Ettumanoor Suresh Kumar V. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Pathanamthitta ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 25.01.2024 FA : 28.02.2024 SA : 03.12.2024
CPIO : 23.02.2024 FAO : 12.03.2024 Hearing : 12.12.2025
Date of Decision: 22.12.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
➢ Ref: 1-My petition dated 12-12-2023 2-Reply from Regional Manager dated 17-01-2024.
(Original dated in letter 17-01-2023) As per ref: (2) it was demanded to pay Rs.10/- (Rupees Ten only) as fee, as per RTI Act. According to it, as a postal order of Rs.10 is not available, a postal order for Rs.20 (Rupees Twenty only) was remitted as fee. I request, that the information requested in reference (1) may be made available.Page 1 of 8
When I contacted the State Bank of India, Mahatma Gandhi University Branch it was informed that the P&T account number is not available, hence the RTI fee was remitted as Indian postal order. Similarly, I apologize for the inconvenience caused by sending a postal stamp of ten rupees on the basis of wrong information received from another branch.
Contents of original RTI application are extracted below for reference:
"Kerala Vellala Mahasabha Educational Society is formed for the management of Vaiyatupuzha VKNM VHSS School under the control of Kerala Vellala Mahasabha. The Society has an account in your branch. I request you to obtain a copy of that account statement. (from the date of opening of the account till the date of sending the reply to this application) the account statement can be sent by email also."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
➢ We observe that the applicant is requesting for information relating to a third party. We presume, that the applicant is a total stranger to the account. So, we decline the application as exempted u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
1) Bank is duty-bound to keep absolute secrecy of the information of its customers, and therefore, information pertaining to the account of the customer could not be divulged by the Bank to any third person without proper authority of the customer.
2) Information pertaining to the accounts of the customer are personal information of the customer and are commercial confidence of the Bank, which are held by the Bank in a fiduciary capacity. Therefore, such information ex-facie falls within the exemption provisions under Section 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.02.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.03.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 2 of 84. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.12.2024. Relevant extracts reproduced below:
"....Therefore, my humble request is that the Commission may give Manager, State Bank of India, Seethathodu Branch, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala to forward a copy of the Bank Account Statement of Kerala Vellala Maha Sabha Educational Society to me at the earliest. It will be a great help to plan to improve the infrastructure facilities of the School in the coming academic year. The School Bus is not road worthy for last four months. The Office bearers says that they have no money with them. There are about 48 lakhs rupees in the account, only 18 lakhs rupees were spent for constructing a new school building, when asked where is the balance amount there is no answer. Hence the Bank Account Statement is a must for the wellbeing of the school."
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Anoop, RM attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that account of Kerala Vellala Mahasabha Educational Society is maintained with the respondent authority and he had sought its account statement from CPIO. However, the CPIO had wrongly denied him the information, although he had requested for the information being the Registrar of the Society. He contended that all the members of the Vellala community having contributed to the Society for underprivileged children benefitted from the Society, were entitled to the information relating to receipt and expenditure of the Society's funds. Therefore, he requested that the Society not being an individual's account, the information ought to the disclosed in public interest and the CPIO's decision of denying him the information after considering him as a third-party may be set aside.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that although the averred account is not an individual account, as contended by the appellant, it was operated through an authorized signatory and the details of the account having been maintained by them in fiduciary capacity, the same cannot be disclosed on the grounds Page 3 of 8 that the Appellant is/was the Registrar of the Society. Besides, the appellant did not endorse any proof establishing his position and did not produce any authorization letter secured by the concerned signatory in the account, if so, along with his RTI application. Therefore, while discharging its duties in safeguarding their customer's interest, the account statement was declined as per provisions under Section 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. Further, the CPIO endorsed their latest written submissions dated 05.12.2025, reproduced as under:
"The RTI applicant, Sri. Ettumanoor Suresh Kumar V sought from the Bank a copy of the account statement of "Kerala Vellala Mahasabha Educational Society", a registered society maintaining a current account with our branch on 25.01.2024 and the CPIO replied to the same on 23.02.2024 against which 1st appeal was made by the appellant before the State Information Commission on 28.02.2024. The SIC returned the claim and hence this appeal. The applicant claims that he is a member of the Kerala Vellala Maha Sabha and that he contributed funds to the Kerala Vellala Maha Sabha Educational Society which is constituted by Kerala Vellala Maha Sabha as a separate legal entity to run their educational institution.
The Bank respectfully submits that disclosure of the account statement is barred under the RTI Act on the following grounds:
(a) Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship:- The Bank holds customer account information in a fiduciary capacity, and disclosure to any third party without consent would violate this statutory protection.
(b) Section 8(1)(j) - Personal Information: -Even if the member claims that he is a member of the Vellala community, that he contributed funds to the society, or he has personal interest in the society's functioning, the bank cannot give the society's account statement to him as he is a third party.Page 4 of 8
Under banking confidentiality norms, the bank's obligation is towards the registered customer-the society. No individual, even a donor or community member, automatically gets rights over the account.
The bank can release the statement only to: Authorized signatories, or Persons authorized through a written resolution/letter from the society's Managing Committee (signed by President/Secretary) and in the absence of such authorization, the bank must refuse.
The petitioner's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision on electoral bonds is entirely misplaced and legally inapplicable. The electoral bonds case dealt with public accountability of political parties, which are treated as entities performing public functions and significantly financed by the State. The Supreme Court directed disclosure only because (i) political parties play a constitutional role, (ii) the issue involved systemic transparency in public life, and (iii) the judgment was based on compelling overriding public interest affecting democracy at large.
In contrast, Kerala Vellala Mahasabha Educational Society is a private, voluntary, community-based society, not a State-funded body, not performing sovereign or constitutional duties, and not covered by any statutory transparency requirement akin to that imposed on political parties. The bank account statement of a private society constitutes commercially confidential financial information protected under Sections 8(1)(d) 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Unlike political parties, this society has no public function, no public financing, and its internal funds are purely private contributions governed by its own bye-laws. Therefore, the principles applied by the Supreme Court in the electoral bonds case cannot be extended to private societies.
The bank is duty-bound to maintain customer confidentiality as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, and ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781. The Hon'ble Court upheld that information held in a fiduciary capacity. is exempt under Section 8(1)(e) unless a Page 5 of 8 larger public interest is clearly established. The bank-customer relationship is fiduciary, and therefore the bank is legally prohibited from disclosing the financial customer's records. In Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala & others (2013) 16 SCC 82, the Hon'ble Court upheld that cooperative societies are not automatically subject to RTI unless substantially financed by the government. A member of a community/society cannot demand society's bank account statement from the bank.
In the present case, the society has not provided any authorization, and the applicant is not an account signatory. Accordingly, in view of the above binding precedents and statutory exemptions, the bank's decision to deny the requested information is fully justified and legally correct.
In view of the above facts and settled law, the Bank respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Commission may uphold the Bank's denial of the requested information under Sections 8(1)(e) 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act; and dismiss the appeal/complaint filed by the applicant."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent replied on 23.02.2024 and denied the information to the appellant under provisions of Section 8(1) (d), (e) and
(j) of the RTI Act. During the course of hearing, the parties advanced their arguments in favour as well as against the disclosure of account statement of Kerala Vellala Mahasabha Educational Society, maintained with the respondent bank. While the CPIO highlighted the fact that the Appellant did not endorse a copy of authority letter on behalf of the authorized signatory, it is emphasized that the issues raised in the first appeal as well as second appeal could have been examined in light of Section 8 (2) of the RTI Act, the contents of which are extracted below for reference:
"...
Section 8(2) in The Right to Information Act, 2005(2)Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow Page 6 of 8 access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests."
Further, on the aspect of larger public interest, the Commission places reliance on element of "public interest" as discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] weherin it was observed as under:
"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 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 colour 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)].
In light of the above, the Commission is inclined to allow the appeal and directs the respondent to disclose the information sought in the RTI application to the appellant after obtaining consent from the concerned authorized representative of the Society, keeping in view the principles of public interest & transparency, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, free of cost, under due intimation to the Commission. In case, the bank receives an objection from the Society's authorized signatory/representative against the disclosure of information, the respondent is directed to secure written explanations stated thereof by the Society, and communicate the same with detailed reasons behind the decision to the appellant, under due intimation to the Commission, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.Page 7 of 8
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 22.12.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, State Bank of India, CPIO, Regional Business Office -4, Pathnamthitta, Second Floor, Kachanathu Towers, Ranni Road, Kumbazha P.O., Pathanamthitta-689653
2. Ettumanoor Suresh Kumar V. Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)