Central Information Commission
Ankit Baweja (Authorized Signatory Rbl ... vs Reserve Bank Of India on 17 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/2020/131917
CIC/RBIND/A/2020/131964 & CIC/RBIND/A/2020/687407
RBL Bank through Ankit Baweja ... अपीलकता /Appellant
(Authorized Signatory)
M/s Delhi NagrikSehkari
Bank Limited through Jitendar Gupta
(Authorized Signatory)
Bank of Baroda through Bipin Chandra
Khanna (Authorized Signatory)
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Reserve Bank of India,
Department ofSupervision, Centre-1,
WorldTrade Centre, Cuffe Parade,
Colaba
Relevant dates emerging from the appeals:-
RTI : 30-09-2019, 17- FA : 26-02-2020, 30- SA : 19-10-2020,
03-2020&10-07-2019 06-2020&28-01-2020 &29-09-2020
Page 1 of 11
Hearing: 08-10-2020,
CPIO : 23-01-2026, 05- FAO : 16-03-2020, 11- 28-10-2020, 02-02-
06-2020&23-01-2020 08-2020&27-08-2020 2021,07-06-2021 &
09-06-2022
ORDER
CIC/RBIND/A/2020/131917
1. The above mentioned matter had been listed before the Commission for hearing on 28-10-2020 & 02-02-2021, 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, observes that the issue of disclosing financial statements, inspection reports of banks including private and PSU banks was sub judice before the Supreme Court. Both parties had agreed to wait until further directions of the Supreme Court. Therefore, any direction of the Commission may pre- empt the issue even though the appellant was not party to the case pending before the Supreme Court (as revealed during the course of hearing). However, it may be premature to adjudicate the matter under the circumstances. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."
CIC/RBIND/A/2020/131964
2. The above mentioned matter had been listed before the Commission for hearing on 07-06-2021, 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 bank has prayed for interim order restraining the CPIO from releasing the information in terms of prayer i.e., the appellant would suffer irreparable loss if the information is disclosed. In terms of the prayer, the second appeal is admitted and keeping in view of the urgency, the operation of the CPIO's reply dated 05.06.2020 and FAA's order dated 11.08.2020 mentioned in para 1 are stayed till further orders. The matter may be posted for hearing as soon as possible."
CIC/RBIND/A/2020/687407 Page 2 of 11
3. The above mentioned matter had been listed before the Commission for hearing on 08-10-2020 &02-02-2021, 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, observes that the issue of disclosing financial statements, inspection reports of banks including private and PSU banks was sub judice before the Supreme Court. Both parties had agreed to wait until further directions of the Supreme Court. Therefore, any direction of the Commission may preempt the issue though the appellant was not party to the case pending before the Supreme Court (as revealed during the course of hearing). However, it may be premature to take a view in this matter. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."
4. 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:
5. Adv. Anand Shankar Jha (Counsel for the RBL Bank) along with Adv. Arpit Gupta, Adv. Ravidutt Sharma (Counsel forM/s Delhi Nagrik SehkariBank Limited) along with Adv. Rajat Sharmaattended the hearing in person. Shri B.C. Khanna, CPIO/CGM (Representative ofBank of Baroda) along with Shri A.K. Mishra, AGMattended 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 Shri Anil Kumar Gaur attended the hearing in person. Remaining Original Applicants did not attend the hearing despite notice.
6. The written submissions of the parties are taken on record.
7. The Counsel for the RBL Bankhas 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 dated 16.03.2020 should be set-aside for want of reasons. The FAA in its order Page 3 of 11 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 andState Bank of India. As the appellant was not a party in that case, it wouldnot 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 asguaranteed under the Right to life as enshrined under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such disclosurewould cause serious prejudice to the market value andreputation of the Appellant Bank and its customers. The Counsel has further 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& 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.
8. The Counsel for Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Limited submitted thatat the stage of second appeal only they have received the copy of RTI Application.The appellant bank has received a Notice u/s 11(1) & (2) of theRTI Act, 2005 on05.05.2020 and through e-mail dated 06.05.2020 from the respondent and called upon to make written Submissions within 10 days from thedate of receipt of the said notice as to whether the document(s) sought by the applicant may be disclosed or not. However, no copy of the application filed bythe original applicant was received. The appellant has objected to provide such information. But the respondent neither considered their objections nor passed speaking order,has expressed their willingness to disclose the requested information.The Page 4 of 11 FAA without providing any personal hearing to the appellant bank, dismissed their first appeal. TheInspection Report(s) for the years 2011 to 2014, 2017- 2018,2018-2019 are not the information/ document which can beprovided under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. It is aprivilege document which contains personal as well as commercial confidential information of the account holder and without written permission fromRBI, the same cannot be provided to any third party.He has also submitted that on one hand, the RBI put a bar on appellant bank from disclosing such information and on the other hand, the RBI itself disclosing such information.
9. In file no. CIC/RBIND/A/2020/131964, the original applicant has submitted that he has not received any reply from the respondent w.r.t his RTI Application.
10. The representative for the appellant Bank i.e. Bank of Baroda submitted that providing the Inspection Reports made by the RBI post completing the inspection of commercial banks and NBFCs/HFCs might hamper the Bank's competitive position and would cause prejudice to Bank's commercial interest, hence, the disclosure thereof was exempted under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. The appellant bank further contended that Inspection Report contained third party/customer information, held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and disclosure of information to the RTI applicant might jeopardize the banker- customer relation and might amount to infringement of their fiduciary relation hence the same was exempted under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. Besides, the appellant bank vehemently argued that the CPIO of RBI while conveying his intention to disclosure the information, had failed to explain as to how the information sought would have served the larger public interest. In addition to the above, the appellant Bank relied upon the case: a writ petition (civil) No. 786 of 2021- Bank of Baroda vs. Union of India & ORS before Hon'ble SC and made the following prayers:-
(a) "Issue a writ in the nature of writ, order of directions to CPIO and RBI not to disclose the confidential and sensitive information and strike down the said Impugned Actions taken by the CPIO, RBI as against the petitioner.
(b) Declare that information obtained by RBI in course of its inspections as well as in the course of its regulatory and functions related to banks and the financial institutions including information relating to Page 5 of 11 customer/employees, information in relation to the management, business plan, trade secret and risk ratings of the petitioner bank, requirement & regulatory intervention any unpublished price sensitive information are exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) of the RTI Act cannot be disclosed.
(c) Direct the respondent not to disclose any reports or any information whether in full or in part, contained in them which are exempted from disclosure under relevant provisions of section 8 of the RTI Act, and /or under any other law(s) for the time being in force.
(d) Direct the respondents to forthwith forbear from disclosure to applicants or otherwise information obtained by RBI in the course of it Inspections as well as in the course of its regulatory and related functions relating to banks and financial institutions."
It was informed by the appellant bank that aforesaid writ petition was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme court for considerations. The Supreme Court had issued notice in the matter and tagged the matter along with the concerned writ petitions. They further stated that since the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other banks had preferred similar writ petitions (tagged), the matter was sub-judice and order if any passed by the Hon'ble CIC, there may be an irreparable injury to the appellant bank. Accordingly, they prayed to allow the present appeal of the bank and direct the CPIO, DBS, RBI not to part with the information as sought by the RTI applicant Shri Rahil Shah till disposal of the appeal.
11. 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 2011-2019. 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 2011-2019to the applicants. He further submitted that the Page 6 of 11 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 was not a party in the aforementioned matters. 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.
12. The representative of Reserve Bank of India has submitted that in file no. CIC/RBIND/A/2020/131964, they have already provided the requested information as sought from point nos. 3 to 8 of RTI Application vide their letter dated 05.05.2020 and no appeal is pending on these points.
Decision:
13. 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 RBL Bank i.e. appellant herein and 13 other banks(as mentioned in RTI Application) from the year 2011-2019. 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 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.
14. The Commission observes that the RTI applicants had insisted for disclosure of information as per Jayantilal N. Mistry's case. The Appellant Page 7 of 11 Banks contested that the information sought as a whole is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (b), 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.
15. The Commission observes in file no. CIC/RBIND/A/2020/131964, the original applicant Shri Anil Kumar Gaur has contended that he did not receive the reply from the respondent. However, the respondent has contended that they have provided the relevant information sought from point nos. 3 to 8 of RTI Application vide their letter dated 05.05.2020. The respondent has further committed to provide a copy of the said reply again to the original applicant. Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent accordingly.
16. 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 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.
17. 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 Page 8 of 11 givenbe 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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 Page 9 of 11 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.
21. 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.
22. With the above observations, all the above appeals are 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 : 09-06-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 10 of 11
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Reserve Bank of India,
Department ofSupervision, Centre-1,
WorldTrade Centre, Cuffe Parade,
Colaba, Mumbai- 400005
2. Ankit Baweja (Appellant)
3. Jitendar Gupta (Appellant)
4. Bipin Chandra Khanna (Appellant)
5. Girish Mittal (Original Applicant)
6. Anil Kumar Gaur (OriginalApplicant)
7. Rahil Shah (Original Applicant)
Page 11 of 11