Central Information Commission
Deepak Verma vs State Bank Of India on 10 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SBIND/A/2022/602960
Deepak Verma .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Regional Manager, State Bank of India,
Region-3, AO 2, New Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/07/2023
Date of Decision : 04/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13/08/2021
CPIO replied on : 08/09/2021
First appeal filed on : 13/09/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 16/10/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13/01/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13/08/2021 seeking the following information:1
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08.09.2021 stating as under:
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.09.2021. FAA's order dated 16.10.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri S S Tomar; Ms Yogini Dubey, Law Officer; Shri Manish Kumar, Associate and Shri Goutam Prasad, Advocate, all present through Intra Video- Conference.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 08.09.2021, they categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is personal information of a third party and held by them in a fiduciary capacity, therefore, it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The Respondent submitted that the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.2
On a query from the Commission, the Respondent submitted that the said bank account (as mentioned in the RTI application) was opened in the year 2009 and at the said period of time, and that the Appellant was not the signatory to the said bank account. However, during the hearing, the Respondent volunteered to re- check the records of the said bank account again to confirm whether the Appellant was the signatory at the time of filing of this present RTI application.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the Respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application is related to details of bank account number 30849208014, etc. and he also claims to be an authorized signatory of the said account. However, the Appellant has not placed on record any relevant document in support of him being the authorized signatory of the said account. Therefore, it is to be treated as a personal information of a third party, therefore, it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and are held by the Respondent Public Authority in fiduciary capacity and also is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
In this context, the Commission relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed. Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein in the context of exemption under section 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Court had held that exemption provided under section 8 of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. The relevant observations are mentioned as under:
22......"Another very significant provision of the Act is 8(1)(j). In terms of this provision, 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 would fall within the exempted category, unless the authority concerned is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. It is, therefore, to be understood clearly that it is a statutory exemption which must operate as a rule and only in exceptional cases would disclosure be permitted, that too, for reasons to be recorded demonstrating satisfaction to the test of larger public interest. It will not be in consonance with the spirit of these provisions, if in a mechanical manner, directions are passed by the appropriate authority to disclose information 3 which may be protected in terms of the above provisions. All information which has come to the notice of or on record of a person holding fiduciary relationship with another and but for such capacity, such information would not have been provided to that authority, would normally need to be protected and would not be open to disclosure keeping the higher standards of integrity and confidentiality of such relationship. Such exemption would be available to such authority or department."
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 color 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)]."
24."The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision."
Nonetheless, during the hearing, the Respondent volunteered to re-check the records to confirm whether the Appellant is the signatory of the said account. In view of this, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-check their records again as to whether the Appellant is the signatory at the time of filing of RTI application and provide a revised reply to him with this effect, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5