Bombay High Court
Chandrakant C. Shah vs Central Information Commissioner, ... on 23 February, 2026
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2026:BHC-AS:10557-DB
1/20 WP 16127-27.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16127 OF 2023
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 16143 OF 2023
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11901 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11905 OF 2024
Chandrakant C. Shah .. Petitioner
Versus
Central Information Commissioner, .. Respondents
Central Information Commission and
others
...
Mr. Chandrakant C. Shah, petitioner present in person.
Mr.Bidan Chandran with Nukshinaro i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for
respondent nos.2 and 3 in WP 16127/2023, WP 11901/2024
and WP 16143/2023.
Mr.Pradeep Mane with Ms.Shushi Dotiya with Ms.Huzan
Bhumgara i/b Desai & Diwanji for respondent nos.2 and 3 in
WP 11905/2025.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ
DATED : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2026.
JUDGMENT:- (Per Bharati Dangre, J) 1 The four Writ Petitions filed by one Chandrakant Shah, raise a challenge to the order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) and seek quashing of the orders Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 2/20 WP 16127-27.doc passed on the four applications filed by him under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act'), seeking certain information.
In the four Writ Petitions though the Central Information Commission is a common respondent, the Public Information Officer as well as the First Appellate Authority differ, as in Writ Petition Nos.16127/2023 and 16143/2023, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and the First Appellate Authority & Chief General Manager, State Bank of India are the respondent nos.2 and 3, as the information was sought from State Bank of India.
In Writ Petition No. 11901/2024, the information was sought from Bank of Baroda and therefore, the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority from Bank of Baroda are impleaded as respondent nos.2 and 3, whereas in WP No. 11905/2024, the information is sought from the Reserve Bank of India and therefore, the Central Public Information Officer, RBI is impleaded as respondent no.2 and the Executive Director and the First Appellate Authority RBI is impleaded as respondent no.3.
2 We have heard Mr.Chandrakant Shah in person.
He claims to be a citizen of India, residing in Mumbai and hence, entitled to receive information under the RTI Act.
For sake of convenience, we are referring to the facts from Writ Petition No. 16127/2023 by considering the Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 3/20 WP 16127-27.doc same as lead Petition and from its perusal, it is revealed that the petitioner filed an online application on 7/10/2022 u/s.6(1) of the RTI Act, seeking information from the PIO, Corporate Lending Division, SBI, on the following points :-
i) Year-wise amount of Provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by State Bank of India in respect of loans advanced to erstwhile Essar Steel Limited (now renamed as ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited) during the period 2012 to 2020
ii) Year-wise write-offs made by State Bank of India in respect of loans advanced to erstwhile Essar Steel Limited (now renamed as ArcelorMittal NipponSteel India Limited) during the period 2012 to 2020
iii) Year-wise amount of Provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by State Bank of India in respect of loans advanced to Essar Power Limited during the period 2012 to 2020
iv) Year-wise write-offs made by State Bank of India in respect of loans advanced to Essar Power Limited during the period 2012 to 2020
v) Year-wise amount of Provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by State Bank of India in respect of loans advanced to Essar Power M.P. Limited during the period 2012 to 2020
vi) Year-wise write-offs made by State Bank of India in respect of loans advanced to Essar Power M.P. Limited during the period 2012 to 2020
vii) Year-wise amount of Provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by State Bank of India in respect of loans advanced to Essar Power Gujarat Limited during the period 2012 to 2020
viii) Year-wise write-offs made by State Bank of India in respect of loans advanced to Essar Power Gujarat Limited during the period 2012 to 2020
ix) Year-wise amount of Provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by State Bank of India in respect of loans advanced to Essar Constructions India Limited during the period 2012 to 2020
x) Year-wise write-offs made by State Bank of India in respect of loans advanced to Essar Constructions India Limited during the period 2012 to 2020."
Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 4/20 WP 16127-27.doc 3 The PIO being assigned with the disposal of information as requested in point nos.1, 2, 7 and 8 forwarded a reply denying the information by stating thus :-
"The information sought by you vide point no.1, 2, 7 and 8 of your application is information relating to commercial confidence of the Bank and of its customer. Further, the information relating to its customer is also held in fiduciary capacity by the Bank. Hence the information sought under point number, 1, 2 7 and 8 of your application is exempted from disclosure as per section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Hence the same is not being provided."
4 Since the order provided a remedy of Appeal before the First Appellate Authority and the General Manager, State Bank of India, the petitioner filed an online Appeal by stating that citizens have a right to know about the working of banking companies including safety of their hard earned money which they have deposited in the Government owned banks. Therefore, the issue and question of "commercial confidence"
cited by the learned CPIO did not arise and the exemption claimed u/s. 8(1)(d) is misplaced, misleading and devoid of any truth, merit and substance and not maintainable and deserve to be dismissed. Similarly, as far as ground of Section 8(1)(d) mentioned by the CPIO that the information relates to its customer is held in fiduciary capacity was also called in question, by placing reliance upon the decision by CIC in Dr. Mohan K. Patil Vs. Reserve Bank of India, to establish that to have a fiduciary relationship, it is necessary that there shall be a provider of information but the information sought by the applicant is not provided by the defaulting borrower, but is held Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 5/20 WP 16127-27.doc by the Bank as part of its internal record and therefore, there was no question of 'fiduciary relationship', and reliance on Section 8(1)(1)(e) was also misplaced and misleading.
5 The aforesaid Appeal was decided by the First Appellate Authority and as regards point nos.1, 2, 7 and 8, the response of the Authority was indicated as below:-
"DECISION:
I have carefully gone through the online appeal dated 18.10.2022 by appellant Mr Chandrakant C. Shah against reply of CPIO & DGM SAMB III Mumbai vide his letter no SARG/RTI/OPS/2022-23/1016 dated 15.10.2022.
Point No. 1, 2, 7 & 8 The Appellant sought the information regarding Year-wise amount of write off & provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by State Bank of India in respect of loans advanced to erstwhile Essar Steel Limited (now renamed as Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited) and Essar Power Gujrat Limited during the period 2012 to 2020.
In my opinion, the appellant/applicant sought information of a particular account of Bank's customer. It is given to understand that Bank has initiated recovery proceedings against the personal guarantors to the borrower company. Thus, we are of the view that disclosing the information as sought may harm the said recovery proceedings and also business interests of the bank as the information sought is held by the Bank under fiduciary relationship and also involves commercial confidence of the constituents (borrowers) of our Bank. It is pertinent to refer to Section 44 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 which cast an obligation on the Bank to maintain secrecy arising out of the contractual relationship between the customer and Bank, Hence, the said information is exempted from disclosure under Clause (d) (information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the said information is held by the Bank in a fiduciary capacity and in terms of Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2004 information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship is exempted from disclosure.
The present appeal is disposed of as above."
Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 6/20 WP 16127-27.doc 6 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred a Second Appeal to the Chief Information Officer, New Delhi, by reiterating his stand that refusing the information by invoking Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the Act was unsustainable and it was specifically contended that the First Appellate Authority had wrongfully and without any basis or reasonable cause mentioned that disclosure of information would harm recovery proceedings or business interest, as the information is sought in good faith and out of genuine and serious concern that hard earned money of tax payers is being splurged by state run Banks upon large and powerful corporate borrowers in close nexus between the borrowers, bankers and government officials. It was also urged that by disclosing the information, the recovery proceedings or business interests are not going to be affected in any manner, and it is an absurd, misplaced and ill-conceived excuse by the First Appellate Authority to deny the information.
7 Reliance was also placed by Mr. Chandrakant Shah on Section 22 of the RTI Act by submitting that Section 22 in the Act has an overriding effect over any other law, for the time being in force and the claim of exemption is not valid and tenable.
The aforesaid Appeal resulted in passing of the impugned order by CIC, who noted the order passed by the PIO as well as the First Appellate Authority and focussed on the request made by the appellant through the application filed Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 7/20 WP 16127-27.doc seeking disclosure of the information.
On hearing the appellant as well as the Deputy General Manager and CPIO, the Appellate Authority recorded that it did not find any infirmity in the reply of the CPIO as well as the submissions tendered during the course of hearing, as the same were found to be in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
8 The Commission expressed its agreement with the denial of information by the CPIO u/s.8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and its conclusion is recorded in the following words :-
"A bare perusal of aforesaid exemption clause and also considering the fact that he primary essence of information sought is detailed information pertaining to Year wise number of Provisions for bad and doubtful debts/ write offs made by State Bank of India in respect of loans advanced to Essar Power Gujarat Limited during the period 2012 to 2020, in itself reflects that disclosure of entire contents of said information may apparently harm the business interests of SBI and/or averred firm; it therefore, attracts the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act."
As far as the applicability of Section 8(1)(e) of the Act is concerned, the attention of the appellant was drawn by Commission to the decision of the Apex Court in case of CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay,1 wherein the Apex Court had dealt with the meaning and import of the term 'fiduciary".
The Commission also noted that disclosure of the detail write offs/debts year wise of the concerned firm, also entails invasion of privacy of third parties which would attract 1 (2012) 13 SCC 61 Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 8/20 WP 16127-27.doc clause 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
The CIC placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2 as well as in the said decision, the import of "personal information" as envisaged u/s.8(1)(j), has ben exemplified in the context of the earlier precedence, which categorically held that personal records include name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades, answer sheets. Similarly, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing etc are personal information, which is entitled for protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied.
With the aforesaid reasoning, the Appeal was disposed of.
9 The reasoning adopted by the CIC in WP No. 16143/2023 is also more or less identical, reliance being placed upon Section 8(1)(d) (e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as well as the decision of the Apex Court in case of Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra).
As far as WP No.11901/2024 is concerned, the CIC noted the absence of the appellant and recorded that the respondent while defending their case, had urged that the information was sought by the appellant about their customer 2 (2020) 5 SCC 481 Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 9/20 WP 16127-27.doc and third party's account i.e. Essar Steel Limited, which was held by them in fiduciary capacity and this information was exempted from disclosure u/s.8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act and thus, did not find any fault with the decision of the CPIO. 10 In Writ Petition No.11905/2024, recording the absence of the appellant during hearing, the contention of the respondent that a response to the RTI Application was already furnished to the appellant was recorded. It was also noted that the respondents specifically pleaded that the information sought with regard to the data for write-off at the borrower level for the period 2012 to 2020 was not available and the information sought on point no.1 related to marketed sensitive information was exempted u/s.8(1)(a) and (d) of the RTI Act. Recording that the respondent had duly replied to the appellant and in absence of any additional objections being raised, the CIC arrived at a conclusion that no intervention was warranted and hence, dismissed the Appeal.
It can thus be seen that the CIC adopted a common approach in first three cases, whereas in case where the information was sought from RBI, it was noted that the requisite information was supplied.
11 Mr.Chandrakant Shah called in question the aforesaid decisions by submitting that the approach of the PIO as well as the Appellate Authority and the CIC was completely unjustified in the wake of his right to seek information under the control of public authorities and specifically focussing his Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 10/20 WP 16127-27.doc attention of the preamble of the RTI Act, 2005, he would submit that the statute confer a right to information on the citizens in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. According to him, it is the duty of public authority to maintain all its records in a manner which would facilitate the 'Right to information' under the Act and it is made available within reasonable time, when it is sought. According to him, the exemption which is sought by the Authority under section 8(1)(d) and (e), none of the defences sought are justified in the present case.
He would place reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry,3 which considered the issue that arose for consideration, as to whether the information, sought under the RTI Act, 2005 can be denied by the Reserve Bank of India and other Banks to the public at large, on the ground of economic interest, commercial confidence, fiduciary relationship with other bank on one hand and public interest on the other. He would place heavy reliance upon the observations, wherein it was noted that the CIC had directed the RBI to furnish the information sought from CPIO, in respect of a Co-operative Bank, related to the inspection report which was denied on the ground that it was received by RBI in a fiduciary capacity and is exempted under Section 8(1)
(e) of the Act.
12 Reliance is placed on paragraph no.78 of the decision, referring to the observations of the CIC, while it 3 (2016) 3 SCC 525 Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 11/20 WP 16127-27.doc directed RBI to furnish the information was reproduced which read thus :-
"Before parting with this Appeal, we would like to record our observations that in a rapidly unfolding economics scenario, there are public institutions, both in the banking and non-banking sector, whose activities have not served public interest. On the contrary, some such institutions may have attempted to defraud the public of their moneys kept with such institutions in trust. RBI being the Central Bank is one of the instrumentalities available to the public which as a regulator can inspect such institutions and initiate remedial measures where necessary. It is important that the general public, part particularly, the share holders and the depositors of such institutions are kept aware of RBI's appraisal of the functioning of such institutions and taken into confidence about the remedial actions initiated in specific cases. This will serve the public interest. The RBI would therefore be well advised to be proactive in disclosing information to the public in general and the information seekers under the RTI Act, in particular. The provisions of Section 10(1) of the RTI Act can therefore be judiciously used when necessary to adhere to this objective."
Similarly, Mr.Shah has also placed heavy reliance upon paragraph no.79 of the said decision which read thus:-
"Promoting industrialization at the cost of public funds does not serve the public interest, it merely amounts to transferring public money to private account'. Such practices have led citizens to believe that defaulters can get away and play fraud on public funds. There is no doubt that information regarding top industrialists who have defaulted in repayment of loans must be brought to citizens' knowledge; there is certainly a larger public interest that could be served on ....disclosure of the same. In fact, information about industrialists who are loan defaulters of the country may put pressure on such persons to pay their dues. This would have the impact of alerting Citizens about those who are defaulting in payments and could also have some impact in shaming them."
13 It is the further submission of Mr. Shah that RBI itself had issued a circular directing all Banks to send a report on their defaulters which it would share with all Banks and Financial Institutions, so as to alert the Bank and Financial Institutions and put them on guard against such defaulters and Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 12/20 WP 16127-27.doc also to make public the name of the borrowers who had defaulted and against whom Suits have been filed by the Bank/financial institutions.
Mr.Shah would also place heavy reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors (supra).
14 We have perused the applications in the petitions, to note that the petitioner sought information only against one entity i.e. Essar Steel Ltd (renamed as ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Pvt Ltd.) and the information sought is, as regards the bad and doubtful debts by the State Bank of India as well as Bank of Baroda along with the year wise write offs in regard to the loans advanced. In addition, the year wise amount of provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by the Bank for the period from 2012 to 2020, as well as the year wise write offs in respect of loans advanced to Essar along with year wise write offs was also sought. The same information was also sought in regards to Essar Power M.P Limited, Essar Power Gujarat Limited, Essar Constructions India Ltd.
The aforesaid information was denied by the CPIO, by taking recourse to Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) and we reproduce the said provisions from the Act.
"8 Exemption from disclosure of information - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen -
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 13/20 WP 16127-27.doc authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
(e) 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;
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:"
15 The enactment of 2005, in form of special statute is aimed at achieving the right of information of the citizens in securing information under the control of public authorities, with a view to promote transparency and accountability in its working. While recognising the right of a citizen and the obligations cast on the Public Authority under section 4 of the Act, for dealing with the request received under Section 6 and disposal of such request, the statute itself has carved out certain exemptions from disclosure of information.
Section 8 has set out that there shall be no obligation for providing any information to the citizen, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act and this include clauses (d) and (e), as above, which cover information including commercial confidence, trade secret or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 :::
14/20 WP 16127-27.doc
This clause read with clause (e) exempt the
information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrant disclosure of such information.
These two clauses are invoked by the Bank, by stating that the information relating to its customer was held in fiduciary capacity since the information was sought of a particular account of its customer. The First Appellate Authority clearly indicated that the Bank had initiated recovery proceedings against the personal guarantors to the borrower company and disclosing the information, may harm the recovery proceedings and business interest of the Bank, as the information is held by the Bank under fiduciary relationship and involves commercial confidence of the constituents (Borrowers).
The aforesaid reasoning found favour with the CIC and concurring with the PIO as well as the First Appellate Authority, the CIC held that the information sought is exempted from disclosure under clause (d), apart from the fact that the information held is in a fiduciary capacity and even exempted under section 8(1)(e).
16 Admittedly, the relationship between the Bank and its customer, who holds an account in the Bank or borrow money from the Bank or invest in the Bank is primarily fiduciary and contractual. It is a relationship of trust reposed in the Bank as its investor.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 :::
15/20 WP 16127-27.doc
In Bandopadhyay (supra), the term 'fiduciary' has been discussed in great length with reference to its meaning in Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, where it was defined 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."
Similarly, quoting American Restatements (Trusts and Agency) which had defined 'fiduciary' as one whose intention is to act for the benefit of another as to matters relevant to the relation between them, Their Lordships also drew benefit of definition of 'fiduciary' from the Corpus Juris Secundum (Volume 36A page 381) and reproduced the said definition as below :-
""A general definition of the word which is sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all cases cannot well be given. The term is derived from the civil, or Roman, law. It connotes the idea of trust or confidence, contemplates good faith, rather than legal obligation, as the basis of the transaction, refers to the integrity, the fidelity, of the party trusted, rather than his credit or ability, and has been held to apply to all persons who occupy a position of peculiar confidence toward others, and to include those informal relations which exist whenever one party trusts and relies on another, as well as technical fiduciary relations. The word `fiduciary,' as a noun, means one who holds a thing in trust for another, a trustee, a person holding the Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 16/20 WP 16127-27.doc character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that of a trustee, with respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor which it requires; a person having the duty, created by his undertaking, to act primarily for another's benefit in matters connected with such undertaking. Also more specifically, in a statute, a guardian, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, conservator, or any person acting in any fiduciary capacity for any person, trust, or estate. Some examples of what, in particular connections, the term has been held to include and not to include are set out in the note."
17 In paragraph no.21 of the Law Report, the term 'fiduciary' and 'fiduciary relationship' was expounded with reference to the definitions, by recording that the term 'fiduciary relationship' is used to describe a situation or transaction where one person 'beneficiary' place complete confidence in another person 'fiduciary' in regard to his affairs, business or transaction/s. Further, it is held that 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 belonging to the beneficiary and 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' shall act in confidence and is expected not to disclose the thing or information to any third party.
18 In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commr.,4 the Supreme Court observed thus :-
4(2013) 1 SCC 212 Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 17/20 WP 16127-27.doc "11. 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 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.
12. 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 organisation 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 or 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.
13. 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.
14. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
15. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 18/20 WP 16127-27.doc for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed."
14 The information or the details maintained by the Bank qua its borrower/customer, definitely is held in commercial confidence and as the First Authority had disclosed in the order that there are proceedings initiated against the guarantor/borrower and disclosure of the details of the bank loans or bad debts of the entity in regard to which the information is sought, would hamper the recovery proceedings, in absence of the competent authority being satisfied that larger public interest warrant disclosure of some information, according to us, the information held in confidence by the Bank, with its customer being fiduciary in nature, we find no ground to justify disclosure of the information.
Apart from this, if the information is personal information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or if it results into unwarranted invasion of privacy, such information, unless it is found by the Appellate Authority to be in larger public interest, can be withheld under section 8(1)(j) of the Act.
Though Mr.Shah would place heavy reliance upon the observations of the Apex Court in Jayantilal Mistry (supra), to the effect that the information regarding those who have defaulted in repayment of loans, must be brought to the citizens knowledge and as it would serve larger public interest and put pressure on the persons to pay their dues and will also Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 19/20 WP 16127-27.doc alert the citizens and would have the impact in shaming the defaulters, looking to the information which is sought by the petitioner, we have noted that the petitioner is only seeking information as far as one entity i.e. Essar Steels and its subsidiaries or group companies and the information sought is about bad and doubtful debts in respect of the loans advanced to Essar Steel, Essar Power Ltd, Essar Power M.P. Ltd, etc. We cannot but note that it is nothing but an attempt in targetting only a particular company and from all the three banks i.e. State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda and Reserve Bank of India, the information sought is only in regards this Company and when we specifically put to Mr.Shah as to why he has restricted his right to seek information only to this Company, he has referred to his dealings with the said entity and made it clear to us that, this is the specific reason why he wanted the information about the said Company.
We must express that the provisions of RTI Act 2005, cannot be used for settling any personal scores and definitely, not as a tool of vengeance and the information cannot be used to settle some scores and unless and until the information held in confidence or in fiduciary relationship, would do some better good by its disclosure, in our view, such information has been rightly refused. When a fiduciary relationship is shared, the information retained by one who act in trust, is duty bound to restrict it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information, and the information is sought Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 ::: 20/20 WP 16127-27.doc from the Bank and not from the borrower, do not make any sense as he has filed the RTI Application with the Bank and the same is refused to him as the authorities did not find its disclosure in larger public interest, particularly when the information was held by the Bank in its fiduciary capacity and also it was confidential, commercial information in which the public at large is not interested. When the information is sought as regards the third party, and in this case, the customer of the Bank, it is permitted to be refused unless larger public interest is proven which would outweigh the private interest. In absence of any such public interest being presented before the Authorities including the Central Information Commission, in our view, the applications have been rightly rejected and we see no reason for granting any indulgence.
Writ Petitions are dismissed.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE,J) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:27:46 :::