Central Information Commission
Amita Mittal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 14 March, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2022/628720
Amita Mittal ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Reserve Bank of India
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 12.03.2022 FA : 19.04.2022 SA : 24.05.2022
CPIO : 11.04.2022 FAO : 23.05.2022 Hearing : 04.03.2024
Date of Decision: 12.03.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Inspection Reports/Risk Assessment Report made by RBI post completing the inspection or any interim report available of following entities for last 3 years available under BR Act or any other applicable Act/Rules etc:
a) HDFC Bank.
b) Yes Bank."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.04.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 1 of 7a) "As regards the Inspection Reports/Risk Assessment Reports for the FY 2018-19 & FY 2019-20, we have issued notice u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the bank concerned (Annex-1). On receipt of reply from the bank, further communication will be made.
As regards the Inspection Report/Risk Assessment Report for the FY 2020-21, it is informed that the supervisory process/action in the matter is not yet complete. Disclosure of such information at this stage is considered premature in terms of Para 77 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated December 16, 2015, in 'Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal Mistry Case' [2016(3) SCC 525]. Hence the information is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
b) As regards the Inspection Report/Risk Assessment Report for the FY 2018-19, we have issued notice u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Bank concerned (Annex-2). On receipt of reply from the bank, further communication will be made. As regards the Inspection Reports/Risk Assessment Reports for the FY 2020-21, It is informed that the supervisory process/ action in the matter is not yet complete. Disclosure of such information at this stage is considered premature in terms of Para 77 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated December 16, 2015, in 'Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal Mistry Case' [2016(3) SCC 525]. Hence, the information is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2022. The FAA vide order dated 23.05.2022 observed inter alia as under:
"5. To provide an information pertaining to third party under RTI Act, the CPIO is statutorily required to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the Act, and to see whether the information sought falls within any of the exemptions under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
'RBI is supposed to uphold public interest and not the interest of individual banks. RBI is clearly not in any fiduciary relationship with any bank. RBI has no legal duty to maximize the benefit of any public sector or private sector bank, and thus there Page 2 of 7 is no relationship of 'trust' between them. RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large, the depositors, the country's economy and the banking sector. Thus, 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 respondents herein.'
6. While observing the above, the Apex Court has directed the Reserve Bank to provide the information pertaining to banks/ financial institution under RTI Act in order to maximize public interest, but not without following the procedure contained in Section 11 of the RTI Act. At the same time, the Court has also observed that the excessive use of the right to information in case of national economic interest etc. may lead to harm, and emphasized on the time to release the information. The observation of the Supreme Court in Para 77 is reproduced hereinbelow:
77. ...It has to be understood that rights can be enjoyed without any inhibition only when they are nurtured within protective boundaries. Any excessive use of these rights which may lead to tampering these boundaries will not further the national interest. And when it comes to national economic interest, disclosure of information about currency or exchange rates, interest rates, taxes, the regulation or supervision of banking, insurance and other financial institutions, proposals for expenditure or borrowing and foreign investment could in some cases harm the national economy, particularly if released prematurely...This makes it necessary to think when or at what stage an information is to be provided i.e., the appropriate time of providing the information which will depend on nature of information sought for and the consequences it will lead to after coming in public domain. (emphasis supplied)
7. The CPIO has clearly informed the appellant that the IR/ RAR pertaining to HDFC Bank and Yes Bank for the FY 2020- 21 and 2019- 20 & 2020- 21, respectively, are considered premature as the supervisory action in the matter has not yet complete, and hence, exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(a) of the RTI Act, the question of issuing notices to the banks does not arise. A notice under Section 11 is issued when the CPIO intends to disclose the information which relates to or supplied by and has been Page 3 of 7 treated as confidential by that third party. In the present case, the CPIO does not intend to disclose the information as the same is prima facie exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(a) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the reply given by the CPIO does not warrant any interference by the appellate authority."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.05.2022.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Vinod Kumar, DGM & Rep. of CPIO along with Lokesh, Legal Officer attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Respondent emphasized on the observations of the FAA and further relied on their written submissions dated 29.02.2024 stating inter alia as under:
"7. It is submitted that to provide an information pertaining to third party under the RTI Act, the CPIO is statutorily required to follow the procedure prescribed under section 11 of the Act, and to see whether the information sought falls within any of the exemptions under section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, it is further submitted that as regards Inspection Reports/ RAR of HDFC Bank for FY 2018-19 and 2019-20 a notice dated 06.04.2022 (Annex- 5) under section 11 (1) has been issued to HDFC Bank and after duly considering the response dated 13.04.2022 of HDFC Bank, the CPIO, RBI, vide letter dated 09.05.2022 (Annex- 6) issued notice to appellant under section 11(3) of the RTI Act informed the decision of CPIO to disclose the Inspection Reports/ RAR of HDFC Bank for FY 2018-19 and 2019-20 to HDFC Bank. Aggrieved by the notice issued by CPIO, RBI under section 11(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, HDFC Bank had preferred an appeal dated 14.06.2022 under section 19 of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The First Appellate Authority duly considered the contentions of HDFC Bank and dismissed the first appeal vide Order dated 19.07.2022 (Annex-7). Further, aggrieved by the said Order of FAA dismissing the first appeal, HDFC Bank preferred a second appeal before this Hon'ble Commission which is registered as Diary No. 656170/2022 and the Page 4 of 7 same is pending for adjudication. The disclosure of the Inspection Reports/ RAR of HDFC Bank for FY 2018-19 and 2019-20 is subject to the outcome of the above second appeal.
8. It is further submitted that as regards Inspection Reports/ RAR of YES Bank for FY 2018-19, a notice dated 06.04.2022 (Annex-8) under section 11 (1) had been issued to YES Bank and after duly considering the response YES Bank dated 12.04.2022, the CPIO, RBI, vide letter dated 09.05.2022 (Annex-9) issued notice to appellant under section 11(3) of the RTI Act informed the decision of CPIO to disclose the Inspection Reports/ RAR of YES Bank for FY 2018-19 to YES Bank. Aggrieved by the notice issued by CPIO, RBI under section 11(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, YES Bank had preferred an appeal dated 14.06.2022 under section 19 of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The First Appellate Authority duly considered the contentions of YES Bank and dismissed the first appeal vide Order dated 19.07.2022 (Annex- 10). Further, aggrieved by the said Order of FAA dismissing the first appeal, YES Bank preferred a second appeal before this Hon'ble Commission which is registered as Diary No. 656168/2022 and the same is pending for adjudication. The disclosure of the Inspection Reports/RAR of YES Bank for FY 2018-19 is subject to the outcome of the above second appeal.
9. As regards the Inspection Reports/ RAR of HDFC Bank for FY 2020-21 and Inspection Reports/ RAR of YES Bank for FY 2019-20 and 2020-21, CPIO, RBI has informed that supervisory action in the matter is not yet complete, the disclosure of information at this stage is considered premature in terms of Para 77 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal Mistry [2016 (3) SCC 525] and therefore, the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, it is submitted that the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgement had directed the Reserve Bank to provide the information pertaining to banks/ financial institution under RTI Act in order to maximize public interest, but not without following the procedure contained in Section 11 of the RTI Act. At the same time, the Court has also observed that the excessive use of the right to information in case of national economic interest etc. may lead to harm, and emphasized on the time to release the information...
Page 5 of 710. As regards the appellant's contention that the CPIO has denied even issuing notice to HDFC Bank the Inspection Reports/ RAR for FY 2020-21 and YES Bank Inspection Reports/ RAR for FY 2019-20 and 2020-21, It is submitted that the CPIO has clearly Informed the appellant that the IR/RAR pertaining to HDFC Bank and Yes Bank for the FY 2020-21 and 2019-20 & 2020-21, respectively, are considered premature as the supervisory action in the matter has not yet complete, and hence, exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(a) of the RTI Act, the question of issuing notices to the banks does not arise. A notice under Section 11 is issued when the CPIO intends to disclose the information which relates to or supplied by and has been treated as confidential by that third party. In the present case, the CPIO did not intend to disclose the Information as the same is prima facie exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(a) of the RTI Act.
11. As regards the appellant prayer for initiating penal proceedings against the CPIO, it is submitted that Section 21 of the RTI Act provides protection of action taken in good faith. The CPIO has considered the application of the appellant within the purview of the RTI Act. There is no lacuna, procedural or otherwise, or any mala- fide intention on part of the CPIO in replying to the RTI application filed by the appellant and hence, initiation of any penal proceedings, as sought by the appellant, against the CPIO is neither war- ranted nor justified."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the reply provided by the CPIO and the contentions of the Appellant against the said reply has been duly considered and adjudicated upon by the FAA in a reasoned manner. Further, at this stage, the CPIO has also justified the denial of the 'IR/RAR pertaining to HDFC Bank and Yes Bank for the FY 2020-21 and 2019-20 & 2020-21' as per the provision of Section 19(5) of the RTI Act while also explaining the factual stance of the Bank with respect to the disclosure of the completed IRs and RARs of the averred banks, which bears no infirmity.
9. Adverting to the foregoing observation, no action lies against the Respondent in the instant matter.
Page 6 of 710. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 12.03.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Reserve Bank of India,
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell,
Department of Supervision, Central Office,
World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Parade, Colaba,
Mumbai-400005
2. Amita Mittal
Page 7 of 7