Central Information Commission
Ashish T. S. vs State Bank Of India on 28 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
नई द ली,
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second
Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2020/691298
Mr. Ashish T.S ... अपीलकता /Appellant
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
/Respondent
State Bank of India
RBO-2, 3rd Floor, Aikkara Arbour
Elankom Nagar, Thycaud,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
Kerala-695014
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 04-07-2020 FA : 04-08-2020 SA : 04-11-2020
04
CPIO : 27-07-2020 FAO : 27-08-2020 Hearing: 23
3-06-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) State Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Kerala. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
Page 1 of 52. The CPIO vide letter dated 27-07-2020 had denied the information u/s 8(1)(g), (h) &2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 04-08-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 27-08-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant did not attend the hearing despite notice. The respondent, Shri Mohan Kumar, CPIO/ Regional Manager attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 16.06.2022 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 27.07.2020, they have denied to provide the requested information to the appellant as the investigation is still pending and disclosure of such information would also hamper the safety and security of the individuals. Therefore the requested information had been denied under section 8 (1) (g) and 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought CCTV footage (inside and outside including BMs cabin) of his presence in SBI, Fort Branch as on 30.06.2020 from 11 am to 5 pm. The respondent has already denied the information as disclosure of such information would endanger the life and physical safety of an individual and would also impede the process of investigation. The Commission has gone through the contents of the RTI Application and found that Fort Police has registered FIR No. 1343/2020 w.r.t an incident happened on 30.06.2020 and investigation is under progress against the appellant under section 294(b), 506, 509 and 353 of IPC. Further, the CCTV footage of appellant's presence has been handed over to police authorities.
Page 2 of 5While investigation is in progress, the evidence produced by Bank cannot be shared unless and otherwise under direction of Criminal Court.
7. Moreover the CCTV footage cameras in public places is to ensure surveillance, so as to keep vigil on anti-social elements and other illicit happening, to check crime and facilitate quick response during an emergency. These are related to maintenance of law and order and not for personal uses. If each customer seeks such information for collecting their CCTV footages other than for registering any criminal complaint which is having larger public interest, providing such information would result in misuse of the RTI provisions. Such disclosures shall expose the reach & vulnerability of the surveillance system and can be used to bypass it.
8. In this context, the Commission relied upon the case of Shri K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi, CIC/AT/A/2009/000617dated 16.09.2009, wherein the Commission has held as follows:-
"6...In most cases, the purpose is to find out the identity of those officers who had taken favourable and those who had taken unfavourable view of the conduct of such employees in recording the file-notes. The employees are aware that it is these notes, which eventually lead to decisions for, or against, them by the competent authority and want, for their own different purposes, to gain access to the identities of those recording the notes as well as the notes recorded to pursue their agendas about, or against, the officers recording those notes. It has happened in a few cases that even bona-fide comments made in such sensitive files by officers, when disclosed to the person in respect of whom such comments were made, brought retribution to the officer recording the note in the shape of a court proceeding, a notice for damages and so on. In some cases, even intimidation was resorted to...Confidentiality of note-files, therefore, is an entirely wholesome principle conducive to good governance. Any compromise with objectivity in processing matters extant in the file, is potentially damaging to governance by exposing those entrusted with the charge of processing the matter to, undue, and sometimes, intimidating, scrutiny by interested parties."Page 3 of 5
Further, a reference can be made to the decision of the bench of the Commission in Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal v. SEBI CIC/SM/A/2012/000196 dated 28.11.2014 wherein it was held as under:
"15. In the present case, final orders are yet to be passed by the competent authority under the SEBI Act. Therefore, the process of investigation against the RIL is still pending before SEBI and it cannot be said the same has reached its conclusion. Hence, the requested information falls under exemption under section 8(1) (h) of the Act.
16. The Commission recognizes the perspective brought out on public interest in the course of the hearing. The appellant had underlined emphatically the dimensions of public interest overriding the protected interest, i.e. the protection given to the 'fiduciary' elements. However, the other side argued that the appellant is overstating the public interest without taking into account that the investigation is still going on. We have, therefore, to await the completion of this investigation. It will not be wise for the Commission to speculate as to what conclusions the SEBI will draw."
9. In light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that the respondent has rightly denied the information sought under relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The reply provided by the respondent is in order and same is being upheld by the Commission.
10. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 23-06-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
State Bank of India
RBO-2, 3rd Floor, Aikkara Arbour
Elankom Nagar, Thycaud,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala-695014
2. Mr. Ashish T.S.
Page 5 of 5