Central Information Commission
Chetan Prakash vs Reserve Bank Of India on 30 June, 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/2020/116149,
CIC/RBIND/A/2018/184796 and CIC/RBIND/A/2018/116592
IDBI Bank Ltd. ... अपीलकता /Appellant
Through Authorized Signatory,
Mr.IP Sitaram, Mumbai
ICICI Bank,
Through Authorized Signatory,
Mr. Shubham Saket
ICICI Bank,
Through Authorized Signatory,
Mr. Chetan Prakash
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Reserve Bank of India
Department of Supervision
Central Office, 2nd Floor, Centre-1
Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400005
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
SA : 10-06-
RTI : 02-05-2019, 10- FA : 12-02-2020, 08-
2020, 26-12-
10-2016& 09-02-2017 08-2017& 21-11-2017
2017&16-03-2018
Page 1 of 10
Hearing: 09-06-2021,
26-04-2022, 24-10-
CPIO : 21-06-2019, 05- FAO : 26-02-2020, 12-
2019, 19-12-2019,
07-2017& Not on Record 09-2017&Not on Record
29-04-2020, 22-04-
2022&27-06-2022
ORDER
CIC/RBIND/A/2020/116149 CIC/RBIND/A/2018/116592
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, The above mentioned matter had been listed before the Commission for hearing on 09-06-2021,19-12-2019, 29-04-2019 & 22-04-2022 &26-04-2022, wherein the Commission made following observations:-
"The Commission" observes that similar issue has already been pending before this Commission for adjudication in file bearing no.CIC/RBIND/A/2021/52460 & Ors. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the parties should wait for the outcome of the said decision as it has bearing on all such cases."
CIC/RBIND/A/2018/184796
2. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, The above mentioned matter had been listed before the Commission for hearing on 24-10-2019, wherein the Commission made following observations:-
"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that both parties have agreed for adjournment of the matter in view of the hearing W.P. (Civil) No. 1159/2019 in HDFC Bank Ltd. & Ors. Union Bank of India& Ors. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court listed after four weeks, adjudication of which would affect the second appeal. In the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned."Page 2 of 10
3. In view 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:
4. Adv. Chetan (Counsel for IDBI Bank), Adv. Anand Shankar Jha (Counsel for the ICICI Bank) along with Adv. Arpit Gupta attended the hearing in person. The respondent, Shri Vinod Kumar, Representative of CPIO/Deputy General Manager attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The original RTI applicant Shri Girish Mittal attended the hearing through video- conferencing. Remaining Original Applicants did not attend the hearing despite notice.
5. The written submissions of the parties are taken on record.
6. The Counsels for the IDBI Bank &ICICI Bank 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 Bank before passing their decisions in the matter. No reasons were given for not offering personal hearing in the first appeal. The counsel for the appellant prayed before the Commission that the FAA order should be set-aside for want of reasons. The FAA in its order has mentioned that the interim order passed in Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal Mistry & Ors. would apply only to those banks which are parties to the petition, namely, HDFC Bank Limited, Axis Bank Limited, ICICI Bank, Yes Bank Limited and State Bank of India. As the appellant bank i.e. IDBI Bank was not a party in that case, it would not be possible for the appellant to take benefit of that order.He further submitted that the information sought by the RTI applicant was completely exempted as the information sought includes commercial information received in fiduciary capacity, disclosure of information sought is specifically prohibited under various legislations and is specifically exempted under Section 8 (1)(b), Section 8 (l) (d) and Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The disclosure of personal/ commercial information of the banks and its customers violated the right to privacy as guaranteed under the Right to life as enshrined under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such disclosure would cause serious prejudice to the market value and reputation of the Appellant Bank and its customers. The Counsel has further referred the Full Bench judgment of this Page 3 of 10 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& Ors tagged with it before the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia impugning the disclosure of their Inspection Reports or parts thereof by the 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 representative of the Reserve Bank of India while presenting their case inter alia submitted that the applicants vide above RTI applications inter alia, sought, copy of Inspection Reports from year 2011-2018. 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 banks informing that RBI was required to disclose the information sought by the above applicants, enabling appellant banks to make written submission as to whether the information sought by the applicants might be disclosed or not along with reasons for the same. After considering the response from Appellant Banks, the CPIO decided to disclose the detail of Inspection Reports from year 2011-2018 to the applicants. 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 observed that the interim order would apply only to those banks which are parties to the Petition, namely HDFC Bank Limited, Axis Bank Limited, ICICI Bank, Yes Bank Limited and State Bank of India. The appellant bank i.e. IDBI Bank was not a party in the aforementioned matters.Page 4 of 10
Accordingly, it would not be possible for them to take advantage of the interim order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. The RTI applicant i.e. Shri Girish Mittal submitted that the respondent Reserve Bank of India was duty bound to disclose the information sought by the applicant in his RTI application as per Jayantilal Mistry case. He stated that the Reserve Bank of India was creator of reports and it acted as a guardian of public interest. Banks worked in the interest of public and it was the public money that had been invested in banks, therefore, there was a larger public interest in disclosing the information. 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 further referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court bearing Review Petition (C) No. 2309/2012 in W. P (C) No. 210/2012 Union of India vs. Namit Sharma, he relied on para nos. 20 to 23 of the said judgment and submitted that Central Information Commission, is discharging only administrative function and it cannot bring any judicial colour to the matters before it. He also submitted that reliance on the decision of the Central Information Commission in the case CIC/RBIND/A/2021/152460 or any such matter would be "per incuriam." The law laid down by Supreme Court under Article 141 of Constitution is binding on all authorities. That a bare reading of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments in Jayantilal Mistry & Girish Mittal make it amply clear that it is the legal duty of the RBI to disclose the inspection reports of the banks as and when asked for under the RTI Act.
Decision:
9. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the original applicants has sought detail of Inspection Reports made by Reserve Bank post completing the inspection, inter alia, pertaining to IDBI Bank i.e. appellant herein and 6 other banks (as mentioned in RTI Application) from the year 2011-2018. The CPIO, Reserve Bank of India issued notices under Section 11(1) and 11(3) to the respecting banks mentioned above intending to disclose the information. Aggrieved by the Page 5 of 10 decision of the CPIO, the said banks had filed first appeals with the First Appellate Authority. The FAA had also dismissed the first appeals of the banks summarily. Being aggrieved with the order of the FAA, banks had filed second appeals before this Commission.
10. The Commission observes that the RTI applicants had insisted for disclosure of information as per Jayantilal N. Mistry's case. The Appellant Banks contested that the information sought as a whole is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) 8 (1)(h) and 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act and that the CPIO/FAA has not passed any reasoned order settling their objections nor gave any opportunity of hearing to them.
11. As far as the judgment relied on by the original applicant Mr. Girish Mittal in his submissions in the case of Union of India vs. Namit Sharma bearing Review Petition (C) No. 2309/2012 in W. P (C) No. 210/2012 is concerned, the Commission has gone through the contents of the said case carefully and observed that the said case has no relevance in these matters as Central Information Commission is primarily an Appellate Quasi-Judicial Court and not the original authority to decide the RTI Application. The Commission only adjudicates the matter on the decision of the CPIO and FAA, only on the issue as to whether the information as sought should be disclosed to the applicant or not in view of the provisions of RTI Act and guidance from the orders of higher judicial courts on such issues.
12. The Commission further observes that the CPIO while issuing notice under Section 11 of the RTI Act has given the opportunity to the Banks to file their objections, if any, against disclosure of Inspection Reports/Audit Reports, etc. 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 or redaction etc. Orders passed by the CPIO in all the cases are cryptic, almost identical without any reference to objections raised by the Banks which are definitely not identical.
Similarly, the FAA instead of passing a speaking order has also given cryptic, almost identical orders to the appellant banks. 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 Page 6 of 10 opportunity of hearing or elaborating reasons for accepting /not accepting their objections in his decisions in these appeals. 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.
13. The Commission observes that rightful claims of the RTI applicants 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 generally be provided and orders passed by the CPIO and the FAA otherwise if denied or not given be reasoned, speaking and clear. In the present case, order by CPIO should enumerate the principles for disclosure or non-disclosure of 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.
14. In light of the above observations and considering all the facts and circumstances of the above mentioned cases, the Commission is of the view that contour of the arguments are identical as held in 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. It has been observed that there are minor variations in the matters in hand when compared with the matters already decided by the Commission as above.
15. It has already been stated supra that 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 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 above mentioned cases.
Page 7 of 1016. Further, 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 these matters is set aside and the case is being remanded to the CPIO for adjudication afresh in line with the Commission full bench decision passed in file nos. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/152460 & Ors. dated 05.05.2022. 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.
17. Furthermore, since the original applicants has sought the requested information regarding various banks, however few of them have approached the Commission through present second appeals and second appeals, if filed, by the other banks are not known to the Commission. Therefore, if other banks regarding whom the information is being sought would approach the Commission, the decision passed in the above matters would be applicable to them as well.
18. With the above observations, all the above appeals are disposed of.
Page 8 of 1019. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 27-06-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Reserve Bank of India
Department of Supervision
Central Office, 2nd Floor, Centre-1
Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400005
2. Mr. I P Sitaram (Appellant)
3. Mr. Shubham Saket (Appellant)
4. Mr. Chetan Prakash (Appellant)
5. Mr. Advait Rao Palepu (Original Appellant)
6. Mr. Girish Mittal (Original Appellant)
Page 9 of 10
7. Dr. Arvind Kumar (Original Appellant)
Page 10 of 10