Central Information Commission
Shashank Raj (Icici Bank Limited) vs Reserve Bank Of India on 6 May, 2022
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 Nos. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/152460
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/639603
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/660016
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/654598
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/147221
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/147222
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/146942
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/652193
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/147383
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/145618
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/145617 and
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/135704
1. Mr. Shashank Raj (ICICI Bank Ltd.) ... अपीलकता/Appellants
2. Mr. Bipin Chandra Khanna (Bank of
Baroda)
3. Mr. Sunit Malhotra (Axis Bank Limited)
4. Mr. Kumar Medhavi (Yes Bank Limited)
5. Mr. Bhagyesh Joshi (HDFC Bank
Limited)
6. Mr. T.V. Sudhakar(Kotak Mahindra Bank
Ltd.)
7. Mr. Narendra Tiwari (IDFC First Bank
Limited)
8. Mr. S. Dinesh (State Bank of India)
9. Bajaj Finance Limited
10.Induslnd Bank
11.I. L. & F. S. (THIRD PARTY)
12.R. B. L. BANK LIMITED (THIRD
PARTY)
13.RBL BANK LTD.,
14.INDUSLND BANK LIMITED
15.SAHARA INDIA F. SERVICES
(THIRD PARTY)
VERSUS
बनाम
Page 1 of 37
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondents
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
DEPARTMENT OF SUPERVISION
CENTRE-1, WORLD TRADE CENTRE,
CUFFE PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI-400005
Mr. GIRISH MITTAL
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 01-05-2021 FA : 20-08-2021 SA : 06-12-2021
Hearing: 11.03.2022
CPIO : 01-07-2021 FAO : 30-08-2021
& 30-03-2022
DIVISION BENCH OF
SHRI NEERAJ KUMAR GUPTA AND SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
1. Mr. Girish Mittal i.e. the RTI applicant filed an application dated 01.05.2021 under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before CPIO, Reserve Bank of India seeking information regarding:-
Page 2 of 372. The instant matter was earlier listed before this Commission on 11.03.2022 vide which the Commission observed that "It has further come into the notice of this Commission that most of the banks (as mentioned in the RTI application dated 01.05.2021) have also approached this Commission by way of filing their second appeals (arising out of same RTI application) and those second appeals are pending for hearing before this Commission bearing numbers CIC/RBIND/A/2021/147383; CIC/RBIND/A/2021/145617; CIC/RBIND/A/2021/660016; CIC/RBIND/A/2021/147221;
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/147222; CIC/RBIND/A/2021/652193;
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/639603; CIC/RBIND/A/2021/654598;
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/146942; CIC/RBIND/A/2021/145618. Out of the above mentioned cases, stay has been granted in file no. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/639603 and some cases were listed before the Commission but adjourned for next date of hearing. The parties have no objection if the abovementioned cases are clubbed together. Since, the cause of action has arisen from the same RTI application and orders of CPIO and FAA and in the interest of justice, other banks should also be heard in this matter before passing any order in this second appeal".
3. The matter was listed for further hearing on 30.03.2022 wherein the banks as mentioned in the RTI application of the applicant (Shri Girish Mittal) were called to present their case or file their objection.
Hearing:
4. Shri Anand Shankar Jha, MeenakshiDevgan and Shri ShubhamTripathirepresented ICICI Bank Ltd. and RBL Bank who were personally present in the hearing. Shri ArvindNayyar, Sr. Adv. Assisted by Shri Akshay Joshi, Shri Pranaya Goyal, Shri Dhruv Shah, Ms. ApporvaKaushik, Shri Aayesh Gandhi and Shri Dhawal Desai who were personally present in the hearing. Shri V.K. Gupta, Advocate represented Indusind Bank was personally present in the hearing represented Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Shri Anish Dayal, Sr. Adv. represented Bajaj Finance Ltd. along with Shri RakeshSinh, Shri Anand Srivastava and Shri AnweshaChowdhary were personally present in the hearing. Shri S. Dinesh, CPIO & DGM was personally present in the hearing on behalf of the State Bank of India along with Ms. Neha Gupta and Shri Abhinav. The respondent, Reserve Bank of India, Shri Abhay Kumar, CPIO along with Ms. Lali Ramesh, Assistant Legal Advisor, Shri Akhtar, Assistant Legal Advisor attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The RTI applicant Shri Girish Mittal attended the hearing through video-conferencing from Page 3 of 37 Mumbaiand his counsel Shri Pranav Sachdeva and Shri Jatin Bhardwaj were personally present in the hearing. Shri Devender Singh, Chief Manager (Law) representing Bank of Baroda along with Shri P C Khanna, PIO, Bank of Baroda attended the hearing through video-conferencing. Shri Ayush Gandhi, Advocate along with Shri Mangesh Joshi, Manager, Shri Tejas appeared on behalf of HDFC Bank and attended the hearing through video-conferencing. Shri Nimish Bhatt, Joint General Manager Corporate Legal along with Shri Gaurav Mathur appearing on behalf of HDFC Ltd. attended the hearing through video- conferencing from Mumbai. None appeared on behalf of the Yes Bank, ILFS and Sahara India Financial Services despite notice.
5. The written submissions of all the parties were taken on record.
6. The counsel for HDFC Ltd. submitted that no third party notice was issued to them by the respondent i.e. Reserve Bank of India under Section 11(1) and 11(3) of the RTI Act neither they have filed any second appeal before the Commission in this regard. Therefore, they requested the Commission to drop the proceedings against them. In view of this, the HDFC Ltd. is dropped from the memo of parties.
7. The counsel for ICICI Bank Ltd. reiterated the arguments made by him on the last date of hearing i.e., 11.03.2022. He further added that the judgment of RBI Vs, Jayantilal N Mistry was not a complete code in itself wherein all exemption clauses were not discussed but only dwelt upon annual inspection reports/audit reports as such not being exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. He further argued that the issues which were not discussed in the said judgment were then squarely pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (C) No. 1159/2019. The counsel for the ICICI Bank Ltd. further submitted that the information sought by the RTI applicant was completely exempted as the same contained data and information provided by bank about its clients and their functioning which were exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as well. He further referred to a circular dated 14.03.1998 of Reserve Bank of India vide which Inspection Report and Risk Assessment Report could not be disclosed to general public as the same included capital adequacy, inherent risk, economic stability and a dialogue between the regulator and the bank which could not be disclosed under the RTI Act. He emphasized that those reports were shared with the Directors only during the deliberations in the Board and copies thereof were not provided to them. He further submitted that the FAA dismissed the first appeal without even considering the grounds raised in the First Appeal or satisfying himself about the public interest in disclosure. Solely placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RBI vs Jayantilal N. Mistry & Ors., in general, Page 4 of 37 he has held that information sought must be disclosed without giving a reasoned order of rejecting various points raised in the objections. No findings were given regarding objections on account of various provisions of exemption under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act on the disclosure of the report as a whole or various information interspersed in the report. He further stated that Ld. FAA & CPIO, had failed to rely on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481 wherein it had been held that, CPIO, must apply the 'public interest test' and satisfy himself as to how disclosure of third party information was required in overwhelming public interest. The counsel for the ICICI Bank Ltd. further referred to the para nos. 76 and 77 of Jayantilal N Mistry's case. He further objected that the CPIO, RBI had wrongly asked them to bring stay order from the CIC else they would disclose the information to the RTI applicant. The information sought was a dialogue between regulator and the bank and even as per the RBI circular, that type of information could not be disclosed under the RTI Act. He stated that the CPIO, RBI and FAA had violated the principles of natural justice, as they had not given any personal hearing to them 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 should be set-aside for want of reasons and/or should wait for the outcome of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. No. 1159/2019.
8. The counsel for the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. submitted that the Ld. FAA had passed the Impugned Order without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and had inter alia failed to appreciate that the sought disclosure of the said Inspection Reports were exempted under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, more particularly under Section 8(1)(a), Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(j). Besides the contents of the said Inspection Reports sought to be disclosed contained confidential information pertaining to the Appellant, its customers as well as details of the Appellant's commercial transactions, details of Appellant's regulatory compliances bearing no relation with public activity/ larger public interest, and disclosure of the same would cause prejudice to the Appellant, its competitive positionin the market and would also affect customer's confidence in the Appellant Bank, it was argued. He further stated that the FAA did not issue notice/ letter indicating the hearing ofthe First Appeal and no opportunity of being heard was granted to the Appellant. The Impugned Order, therefore, was vitiated by non-observance of the principles of natural justice. He further contended that the bank was entitled to know the reasons for rejecting the Page 5 of 37 contentions made by it in an appeal by way of a reasoned order, however, the Ld. FAA had mechanically passed the Impugned Order. He further submitted that the Inspection Reports were part of an ongoing conversation / dialogue between the Appellant and RBI. The Inspection Reports sought were confidential and sensitive information which were part of data examined by RBI ought to be read in correct context. Single Inspection Report / piece- meal disclosure of Inspection Report under the RTI Act either by redacting some portions or otherwise would present a distorted picture of the business of the Appellant.Pertinently, disclosure of confidential information to public at large would jeopardize the market value, goodwill and business plans of the Appellant. It was submitted that the disclosure of confidential/sensitive information furnished by the Appellant would result in disclosure of confidential and private information of the customers of the bank. If such information was disclosed, it would have affected the trust reposed by people in private commercial bank. Needless to mention that would not only affect the functioning of the banking and financial services sector of the country, but such disclosure would also prejudicially affect the Appellant's functioning and would infringe the Appellant's shareholders' right to conduct /undertake business. Thus, it was submitted that the disclosure of the Inspection Reports was in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The right to privacy of a person has been recognized and upheld as a fundamental rightunder Article 21 of the Constitution by a nine justices' bench of the Apex Court in K.S.Puttaswamyv. Union of India [Reported at (2017) 10 SCC 1]. The counsel further submitted that the Appellant Bank has also filed an Intervention Application being IANo.71227 of 2021 in the matter and the same was pending before the Court. In the meantime,if the information is disclosed by RBI as indicated by them in their letter dated 13th August 2021, irreparable damage would have been caused to the Appellant's rights during the pendency of this Appeal and the said Writ Petitions. The Appellants had also filed an application for interim relief in the above Appeal and till the issue was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and/or pendency of the Appeal the Commission should stay the Impugned Order in the interest of justice and equity.
9. The counsel for the HDFC Bank Ltd. had also raised similar issues as mentioned above and was aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO and FAA. He stated that the CPIO without appreciating the contentions / objections raised by the Appellant and rights of the Appellant, its customers and employees, passed an unreasoned and nonspeaking decision and communicated its intent to disclose the details of the said Reports by the impugned Order. Pertinently, the CPIO did not deal with any objection raised by the Appellant in its reply with Page 6 of 37 respect to Section 11 Notice and hence, the decision arrived by the CPIO was issued in gross transgression of the principles of natural justice. He, further, submitted that while the Ld. FAA had relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment in Transferred Case No.91 of 2015 Reserve Bank of India V. Jayantilal N. Mistry for disclosure of inspections report, it was apposite to mention that the Appellant amongst other bank had filed Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.1095 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India inter alia challenging disclosure of vital information of the banks, including the inspection/ risk assessment reports. Thus, the issue pertaining to disclosure of inspection reports under the RTI Act was sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said Writ Petition filed by several banks.
10. The counsel for the Bajaj Finance Ltd. submitted that they were aggrieved by the order passed by the CPIO and FAA. He stated that the First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the scope, purport and application of the above decision and othersrelating to regulatory and/ or supervisory matters of RBI were pending consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a batch of matters led by the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India (WP (C)No.1159/ 2019. He further contended that the First Appellate Authority further failed to notice the statutory provisions of Chapter III-B of the Reserve Bankof India Act, 1943 relating to Appellant/ NBFC and mechanically applied the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayantilal N. Mistry case which dealt with the inspection reports qua the Banks and not NBFCs like the Appellant Company. None of the issues raised by the Appellant Company were considered by the First Appellate Authority. He stated that the provisions contained in Chapter III-B of the RBI Act categorically demonstrates that the intent of the legislature was to keep the information shared between the RBI and the concerned NBFC in strict confidence and was not to be disclosed to any third party. The Preamble ofthe RTI Act itself provides that the right to information and requirements for preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information were to be harmonised. Therefore, a purposive meaning ought to have been given to the provisions of the Special Act such as the prohibition on disclosure of information u/s 45-NB in Chapter III-B of the RBI Act. The counsel has further referred to the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rangku Dutta Vs. State of Assam; Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra; U.P. State Electricity Board & Another Vs. Hari Shankar Jain &Ors. and General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Another in support of his arguments. He stated that the information sought by the applicant was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Page 7 of 37 Act. Further no public interest was disclosed either by the applicant nor by the CPIO in disclosing the information.
11. The counsel for the Indusind Bank Ltd. submitted that a second appeal bearing no. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/135704 was filed by them wherein stay was granted to them vide order dated 10.02.2022. The counsel for the bank further submitted that the CPIO had passed the non-speaking order and no finding was given on various issues raised by the appellant. He stated that the FAA should have considered and applied the provisions of the RTI Act more particularly provisions relating to the exemptions from disclosure and provisions prohibiting disclosure of certain information, while deciding the appeal of the appellant. Simply because the information which was being generated by the RBI or available in possession with RBI, it could not be disclosed or given to the public without any further inquiry and examination/scrutiny under the provisions of the Act. He stated that the FAA having dismissed the appeal of the appellant by applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Reserve Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Jayantilal Mistry & Ors had violated the principles of natural justice in as much as the appellate authority did not grant any opportunity to the appellant to submit its response to the applicability of said judgment. The information sought by the applicant was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the same issue was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, he contended.
12. The counsel for IDFC Bank Ltd. and Axis Bank Ltd. submitted that the bank prima facie raised its objections to the clubbing of the captioned matters and listing them for hearing on 30th March 2022 along with ICICI Bank's Appeal. The appellant inter alia submitted that they were not aware about the facts and circumstances involved in the ICICI Bank's Appeal, or for that matter in the appeals of the other banks and financial institutions. The facts and circumstances involved in the captioned Appeals may be entirely different from that of IDFC Bank's Appeal. In fact, the nature of information sought in ICICI Bank's Appeal and the captioned matters were highly different since the inspection reports prepared by RBI, in relation to each bank, were based on the information pertaining to the respective individual bank, and therefore, information contained in such inspection reports would highly vary from bank to bank. Moreover, the questions of law, submissions and/or other objections of IDFC FIRST Bank might differ from that of ICICI Bank's Appeal. The appellant bank inter alia argued that the information sought by the RTI application Shri Girish Mittal was exempted from disclosure under the provisions of section 8 (1) (a), (d), (h) and (j) of the RTI Act; and that the Supreme Court's judgment in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry Page 8 of 37 &Anr.[(2016) 3 SCC 525] did not deal with the exemption under section 8 (1)
(d) of the RTI Act. They further stated that the inspection report contained confidential and sensitive information in relation to the business of appellant including trade secrets and information of commercial nature. That the inspection reports contained information such as names and details of the clients, their transaction history, financial solvency, business model of the appellant, its solvency, disclosure of which in public domain would provide information to the competitors of the appellant, thereby causing commercial disadvantage to the appellant. The appellant while claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act argued that the inspection reports contained complex business data which could not be comprehended by a layman. In fact, even a person with expertise would require context to correctly and rightly understand the inspections reports. Therefore, the wholesale disclosure of the inspection reports without any background could set panic in the depositors, investors and other stakeholders of the appellant bank which would consequently have direct adverse effect on the functioning of financial services sector specifically and the economy generally. Hence, the disclosure of the inspection reports would affect the "economic security" of the country. The appellant while claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act relied upon the RBI Circular dated 14th March 1998 titled "Inspection under section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949", wherein the RBI had directed the commercial banks to not provide a copy of the inspections reports even to its directors. They contended that as per the circular even where a copy of the inspection reports were permitted to be given to the audit committee and/or statutory auditors of the commercial banks, such copies would be retained by committee/auditors in strict confidence. Therefore, the information contained in the inspection reports were of such nature that even the directors of the commercial banks were not allowed to retain copies, the same under no circumstance were supposed to be provided to a third person i.e. an RTI applicant with no interest or concern at all. The appellant while claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, argued that the information contained material information relating to the customers against whom legal proceedings had been initiated and were sub judice. Therefore, the disclosure of the information could adversely impact proceedings and investigations and recovery of dues. Moreover, show cause notices issued by the RBI to the appellant was done by RBI under its regulatory and supervisory work. Thus, the information was exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. The appellant while claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, argued that the information constituted "personal information" relating to Page 9 of 37 the customers of the appellant bank. Therefore, the disclosure of the information would violate right to privacy of the appellant and its customers. The appellant relied upon the following observations made by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1]:
"652.3. The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as part of the freedom guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
652.4. Decisions subsequent to Kharak Singh which had enunciated position in para 652.3., above lay down the correct position in law."
Further, there was no larger public interest warranting the disclosure of the information. In that regard, the appellant relied upon the following observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal [(2020) 5 SCC 481]:
"95. The last aspect in the context of public interest test would be in the form of clarification as to the effect of sub-section (2) to section 6 of the RTI Act which does not require the information seeker to give any reason for making request for the information. Clearly, "motive" and "purpose"
for making the request for information is irrelevant, and being extraneous cannot be a ground for refusing the information. However, this is not to state that "motive" and "purpose" may not be relevant factor while applying the public interest test in case of qualified exemptions governed by the public interest test."
13. In view of the above, the appellant Bank prayed that the order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the FAA should be set aside by declaring that the information sought by the RTI applicant including the Inspections Reports/Risk Assessment Reports under the RTI Act was exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.
14. The appellant State Bank of India while presenting his case inter alia submitted that the RBI in pursuant to the ratio in Jayantilal N Mistry case and the Girish Mittal case, RBI disclosed complete RARs, of the Appellant Bank for the years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, without complying with the provisions of the RTI Act or the principles of natural justice, actions were completely arbitrary, and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Appellant bank further submitted that they were in the apprehension that the same might be done in the instant case also. The appellant Bank alsosubmitted thatthe observations recorded by the RBI in the documents ((Inspection Report/Risk assessment Report) were based on confidential information concerning the Bank and its customers, which RBI had obtained in its capacity as the banking regulator/ supervisor of the country. Further, the observations could be best Page 10 of 37 handled by specialists in the subject and making it available to public at large might lead to erroneous interpretations and consequentially, to unwarranted and avoidable impact on the standing of the entire banking system- SBI being a Domestic Systemically Important Bank (DSIB) and also otherwise being the leading financial institution of the country. Accordingly, the appellant contended that the disclosure would prejudicially affect the economic interests of the State (India) thereby harming the overall public sentiment also. Hence, the entire information sought was exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)
(a) of the Act. In additional to the above, the appellant bank stated that major part of the information contained in the Documents were personal information of customers of the appellant's Bank, held in the fiduciary capacity and in the absence of any details as to how disclosure of which would have a constructive impact on public activity or interest, its disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the individuals/customers. Therefore, the information sought by the RTI applicant was exempted under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. It was also argued that the exemption had to be seen from the standpoint of SBI and not RBI. The appellant informed that the contents of the Documents were reflective and contained particulars of their internal positions, control systems and procedures. Disclosure of the information contained therein would adversely impact the appellant Bank's repute and would harm the standing & image of the Bank in the public eye and accordingly it would harm the competitive position of a third party, viz (appellant Bank). Accordingly exemption was claimed under section 8(1) (d) of the Act. The appellant bank humbly submitted that the Documents comprises of Risk Assessment, Major areas of financial divergence, findings on capital and earnings and major areas of non-compliance. The Annexure mentioned in the Reports give statistical data which was most sensitive information for SBI and was exempted under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act. The appellant bank also submitted that the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to RBI in the Girish Mittal case had been misconstrued by RBI. The appellant contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Jayantilal N Mistry case and the Girish Mittal case were presented with a limited perspective, as the parties which were central to the entire process and arguably one of the primary stakeholders who stand affected by the said Judgments i.e. the banks and the financial institutions (such as the Appellant Bank herein), were not party to the proceedings / the above said Judgments, and hence, the Appellant Bank herein never had an opportunity to put forth its stand before the Hon'ble Court.
15. The counsel for the appellant Bank i.e. Bank of Baroda while presenting the case inter alia submitted that providing the RAR (Risk Assessment Report) Page 11 of 37 of the Bank 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 RAR and 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. Furthermore, the appellant Bank submitted that the RBI while forwarding Risk Assessment Report of any Bank placed the following restrictions on disclosure of the same which was not rescinded by the RBI: "The supervisory rating is issued in strict confidence for restricted information of the TOP Management only. The Bank should not quote this for raising deposits or loans or in any other communications. Divulgence of this information to any authority under law is permissible only after written approval from the RBI. " 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 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 Page 12 of 37 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 Girish Mittal.
16. The counsel for the RTI applicant i.e. Shri Girish Mittal submitted that the respondent Reserve Bank of India was duty bound to disclose the information sought by the applicant in his RTI application as per Jayantilal Mistry case. He stated that the Reserve Bank of India was creator of reports and it acted as a guardian of public interest. Banks worked in the interest of public and it was the public money that had been invested in banks, therefore, there was a larger public interest in disclosing the information. Therefore, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 16.12.2015 and as per order dated 28.04.2021 complete information should be disclosed to the RTI applicant. He stated that there was no ambiguity in Jayantilal Mistry's case and there was a larger public interest in disclosing the information. On query from the Commission, the counsel for the applicant submitted that Shri Girish Mittal has also been impleaded in the Writ Petition Nos. 1159/2019 and 768/2021 and other tagged matters which were pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
17. The representative of the Reserve Bank of India while presenting their case inter alia submitted that the applicant, Shri Girish Mittal, vide RTI application dated 01.05.2021 inter alia, sought, Inspection Reports/ Risk Assessment Reports made by RBI post completing the inspection of commercial banks and NBFCs including applicant bank for last 3 years from the date of his application. 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 Shri Girish Mittal, enabling appellant to make written submission within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice as to whether the information sought by the applicant might be disclosed or not Page 13 of 37 along with reasons for the same. After considering the response from appellant, the CPIO decided to disclose Risk Assessment Reports for the years 2017-18 & 2018-19 and Inspection Report for the year 2018-19 of banks to the applicant. The respondent further relied on judgments passed in Girish Mittal v. Parvathy Sundaram and Another, (2019) (6) SCALE 804, the Apex Court directed that 'the Respondents are duty bound to furnish all information relating to inspection reports and other material apart from the material that was exempted in para 77 of the judgment in Jayantilal Mistry's case.In paragraph 77 of the judgement referred to above, the Supreme Court observed, as follows:
'when it comes to national economic interest, disclosure of information about currency or exchange rates, interest rates, tax, the regulation and 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'. With regard to such information affecting national interest, the Supreme Court further observed in the same paragraph that '...the appropriate time of providing the information which will depend on the nature of the information sought for and the consequences it will lead to after coming in public domain'.
The respondent further contended that in order to withhold any information sought by the applicants under the RTI Act, such information should fall within any of the exempted items under Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. If any part of the requested information qualifies for exemption, CPIO would be free to severe/black-out such part and provide the information. The CPIO had decided to disclose the information after severing the information exempted from disclosure under Section 10(1) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
18. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties and perusal of records, observes that the RTI applicant Shri Girish Mittal had sought information regarding Inspection Reports / RiskAssessment Reports made by Reserve Bank postcompleting the inspection, inter alia, pertaining to ICICI Bank Limited i.e. appellant herein and 13 other banks/Financial Institutions for the last 3 years. Further, he has asked for copies of show cause notices issued to any of the banks as mentioned above and response of these banks/NBFCs. 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, Page 14 of 37 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 by the orders of the FAA, some banks had filed second appeals before this Commission. On the other hand, the RTI applicant insisted for disclosure of information as per Jayantilal N. Mistry's case. The CPIO, Reserve Bank of India also intended to disclose the information sought after invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act. The Banks are aggrieved that the information sought as a whole is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) 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. They further argued that orders simpliciter almost identical in various cases irrespective of the different objections raised by them apparently lacked application of mind or reasons. Rejection or acceptance of the specific objections raised by them were not spelt out in the orders which have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to them.
19. The Commission further noted the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Reserve Bank of India V/s Jayantilal N. Mistry case made observations which read as under:-
"the RBI does not place itself in a fiduciary relationship with the Financial institutions because, the reports of the inspections, statements of the bank, information related to the business obtained by the RBI are not under the pretext of confidence or trust. In this case neither the RBI nor the Banks act in the interest of each other. By attaching an additional "fiduciary" label to the statutory duty, the Regulatory authorities have intentionally or unintentionally created an in terrorem effect. RBI is a statutory body set up by the RBI Act as India's Central Bank. It is a statutory regulatory authority to oversee the functioning of the banks and the country's banking sector. Under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, RBI has been given powers to issue any direction to the banks in public interest, in the interest of banking policy and to secure proper management of a banking company. It has several other far- reaching statutory powers".
It clarifies that the functional relationship between a regulator and a regulated entity is not fiduciary. On the other hand the relationship is based on a statutory obligation to ensure operational discipline and support remedial framework. Hence its observations, guidance, directions or remedial actions are an outcome of own functioning.
Page 15 of 3720. On the other hand, the Commission takes note of the submissions made by the Banks and Financial Institutions that large amount of data relating to its clients including their identity, business plans, decisions and financial transactions as well as institutional data such as business plans, trade secret, risk rating, requirement of regulatory intervention, any unpublished price sensitive information etc. of banks and financial institutions is shared with the regulator, without any redaction or withholding the information, in good faith that these will be objectively analysed in discharge of their statutory obligations to make fair judgment on their functioning without affecting their competitive position. The Commission also appreciates that these institutions function in highly competitive, complex and global environment and the data being sought by the regulator is with the intention to draw conclusions on their functioning rather than disclosing the data shared by them in breach of right to privacy of individuals or cause adverse effect to their competitive position vis-à-vis others. To this extent, there is an element of trust and confidence in sharing the data, both financial and operational, between the RBI and the Financial Institutions.The information and data of the clients in the hands of Banks/Financial Institutions also has the element of trust and confidence that such data will not be disclosed or shared against their right to privacy/commercial interest and it is undisputed that clients enjoy fiduciary relationship with the Banks/Financial Institutions irrespective of these being public or private entities.
21. The Commission observes that it is already a settled position in Jayantilal Mistry's case that RBI is not fiduciary in relationship with the banks and financial instution irrespecitve of these being public or private entities. But contents of those reports viz. names of depositors/ borrowers, their transaction and financial history etc., mentioned in above para 20, entrusted by the clients to their respective banks or financial institutions are interspersed in these reports and have to be examined in the light of para nos. 77 of the same judgment and various other judicial pronouncements protecting right to privacy and protection of commercial interests. Therefore, the CPIO, Reserve Bank of India has rightly invited objections but not expressed his reasoned view that to what extent he is agreeing or disagreeing by the objections of the Banks while sharing the proposed redacted report for disclosure in some cases. The Commission is of the view that it is not a simple set of information as inspection and audit report consists of data about client, borrowers and institution as mentioned in previous para beside, its analysis, judgment and observations on the analysis on the data provided by the banks on its functioning, regulatory compliance, deficiencies and strengths, suggestions for course of correction, penal action as per Page 16 of 37 provisions of the law etc., and may be much more which the Commission may not be in a position appreciate in toto at this stage. The Commission further observes that the Reserve Bank of India also acknowledged this and hence have opted for appropriate redaction. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jayantilal Mistry's case had observed that "71. We also understand that the RBI cannot be put in a fix, by making it accountable to every action taken by it. However, in the instant case the RBI is accountable and as such it has to provide information to the information seekers under Section 10(1) of the RTI Act, which reads as under:"Section 10(1) Severability --Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information."
22. The Commission while taking into consideration the contentions raised by the parties have taken note of the fact that the RAR for the years 2017-18 & 2018-19 and inspection report for the year 2018-19 contain details of clients of the banks including their transaction and financial history which have been entrusted by them to their respective banks or financial institutions in a fiduciary capacity. Further, in Central Board Of Sec. Education &Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay&Ors [2011 (8) SCC 497] vide order dated 09.08.2011 examined and explained the expression 'fiduciary relationship', and have illustrated a few relationships where parties were involved in an act of fiduciary capacity including 'customers' in the following words:
"20. The term `fiduciary' and `fiduciary relationship' refer to different capacities and relationship, involving a common duty or obligation. 20.1) Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edition, Page 640) defines `fiduciary relationship' 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 Page 17 of 37 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."
"39. The term "fiduciary" refers to a person having a duty to act for the benefit of another, showing good faith and candour, where such other person reposes trust and special confidence in the person owing or discharging the duty. The term "fiduciary relationship" is used to describe a situation or transaction where one person (beneficiary) places complete confidence in another person (fiduciary) in regard to his affairs, business or transaction(s). The term also refers to a person who holds a thing in trust for another (beneficiary). 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. 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 has to act in confidence and is expected not to disclose the thing or information to any third party."
While taking into consideration the fact that the customers give their financial information to the banks in confidence and with complete faith that may not be divulged as a result of disclosure by others, the following observations passed by the Supreme in Court Bihar Public Service Commission v. SaiyedHussain Abbas Rizwi and Anr.[ (2012) 13 SCC 61] may be relied upon:
"The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the "consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to the 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. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality. The information may come to knowledge of the authority as a result of disclosure by others who give that information in confidence and with complete faith, integrity and fidelity. Secrecy of such information shall be maintained, thus, bringing it within the ambit of fiduciary capacity. Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they Page 18 of 37 spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India."
As emphasized by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in its judgment dated 13.11.2019, right to privacy and right to information have to be treated as co-equals and none can take precedence over the other, rather a balance needs to be struck. The following observations may also be relied upon in that regard:
"42. Privacy, it is uniformly observed in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra), is essential for liberty and dignity. Therefore, individuals have the need to preserve an intrusion-free zone for their personality and family. This facilitates individual freedom. On the question of invasion of personal liberty, the main judgment has referred to a three-fold requirement in the form of - (i) legality, which postulates the existence of law (RTI Act in the present case); (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate State aim; and
(iii) proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means to be adopted to achieve them. The third requirement, we would observe, is achieved in the present case by Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act and the RTI Act cannot be faulted on this ground. The RTI Act also defines the legitimate aim, that is a public interest in the dissemination of information which can be confidential or private (or held in a fiduciary relationship) when larger public interest or public interest in disclosure outweighs the protection or any possible harm or injury to the interest of the third party."
Further in K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [(2017) 10 SCC 1], the Supreme Court observed as under:
"623. An individual has a right to protect his reputation from being unfairly harmed and such protection of reputation needs to exist not only against falsehood but also certain truths. It cannot be said that a more accurate judgment about people can be facilitated by knowing private Page 19 of 37 details about their lives - people judge us badly, they judge us in haste, they judge out of context, they judge without hearing the whole story and they judge with hypocrisy. Privacy lets people protect themselves from these troublesome judgments."
In view of the above, the Commission is of the view that these judicial pronouncements have to be factored while deliberating all the claims of the applicants for complete disclosure which may include inadvertent disclosure of financial, transactional and operational data of the clients of the Banks and Financial Institutions interspersed in RAR/Annual Audit reports etc. and specific objections filed by the Financial Institutions for non-disclosure of such data held by these Institutions in fiduciary capacity while deciding in favour or against the elements of the reports proposed to be redacted or disclosed.
23. Further, in Naresh Trehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta [W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 & 5560/2011], the Delhi High Court made the following observations:
"...It is, thus, essential that information relating to business affairs, which is considered to be confidential by an assessee must remain so, unless it is necessary in larger public interest to disclose the same. If the nature of information is such that disclosure of which may have the propensity of harming one's competitive interests, it would not be necessary to specifically show as to how disclosure of such information would, in fact, harm the competitive interest of a third party. In order to test the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act it is necessary to first and foremost determine the nature of information and if the nature of information is confidential information relating to the affairs of a private entity that is not obliged to be placed in public domain, then it is necessary to consider whether its disclosure can possibly have an adverse effect on third parties."
The Supreme Court while deciding upon issues relating to personal information of an individual in terms of his income tax returns passed the following observations in GirishRamchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commr. [(2013) 1 SCC 212] :
"12. 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 Page 20 of 37 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.
13. 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 organization 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 of 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.
14. 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."
The aforementioned observations make it clear that the data has been shared by the individuals with the Income Tax Department which is seeking such information as an statutory authority but while analyzing and assessing their income keeps this data secured in the fiduciary capacity and hence it is protected from disclosure. It is applicable not only for individuals but for other legal entities recognizable under Income Tax Act. Further, it has been observed that such information in the hands of public authority even in the discharge of statutory obligations is protected under fiduciary relationship.The Commission is of the view that the data of the clients held by the banks or financial institutions in fiduciary capacity may besharedwith the regulator under statutory Page 21 of 37 obligationsshould not be disclosed by the regulator merely on the grounds that it is obtained for the purpose of supervision and regulation unless it is amply justified in the larger public interest.
24. The Commission takes note of the contentions raised by the NBFC i.e. Bajaj Finance Ltd., that a general legislation under provision of section 22 of the RTI Act may not override a special legislation drafted with legislative intent for the protection of financial data of the banks and financial institutions. The Supreme Court in Rangku Dutta Vs. State of Assam(2011) 6 SCC 358 made the following observations:
"It is obvious that Section 20(A)(1) is a mandatory requirement of law. First, it starts with an overriding clause and, thereafter, to emphasise its mandatory nature, it uses the expression "No" after the overriding clause. Whenever the intent of a statute is mandatory, it is clothed with a negative command. Reference in this connection can be made to G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 12th Edition. At page 404, the learned author has stated:
"As stated by CRAWFORD: "Prohibitive or negative words can rarely, if ever, be directory. And this is so even though the statute provides no penalty for disobedience. As observed by SUBBARAO, J.: "Negative words are clearly prohibitory and are ordinarily used as a legislative device to make a statute imperative". Section 80 and Section 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, section 77 of the Railways Act, 1890; section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947; section 213 of the Succession Act, 1925; section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; section 7 of the Stamp Act, 1899; section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956; section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, the proviso to section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended in 1956); section 10A of Medical Council Act, 1956 (as amended in 1993), and similar other provisions have therefore, been construed as mandatory. A provision requiring 'not less than three months' notice is also for the same reason mandatory."
We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid statement of law by the learned author."
Further in Yakub Abdul RazakMemonVs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1, the Supreme Court made the following observations:
Page 22 of 37"The principle that the later Act would prevail the earlier Act has consistently been held to be subject to the exception that a general provision does not derogate from a special one. It means that where the literal meaning of the general enactment covers the situation for which specific provision is made by another enactment contained in the earlier Act, it would be presumed that the situation was intended to continue to be dealt with by the specific provision rather than the later general one."
Further in U.P. State Electricity Board & Another Vs. Hari Shankar Jain &Ors. and General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Another (1978) 4 SCC 16, the Supreme Court made the following observations:
"The maxim "Generaliaspecialibus non derogant" is quite well known. The rule flowing from the maxim has been explained in Mary Seward v. The owner of the "Vera Cruz"(l) as follows:
"Now if anything be certain it is this, that where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier and special legislation indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such general worlds without any indication of a particular intention to do so".
(1) [1884] 10 AC 59 at 68.
The question in Seward v. Vera Cruz was whether Sec. 7 of the Admiralty Court Act of 1861, which gave jurisdiction to that Court-over "any claim for damage done by any ship" also gave jurisdiction over claims for loss of life which would otherwise come under the Fatal Accidents Act. It was held that the general words o Sec. 7 of the Admiralty Court Act did not exclude the applicability of the Fatal Accidents Act and therefore, the Admiralty Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim for damages for loss of life.
The reason for the rule that a general provision should yield to a specific provision is this: In passing a Special Act, Parliament devotes its entire consideration to a particular subject. When a General Act is subsequently passed, it is logical to presume that Parliament has not repealed or modified the former Special Act unless it appears that the Special Act again received consideration from Parliament. Vide London and Blackwall Railway v. Lighthouse District board o Works(l) and Thorpe v.
Page 23 of 37Adams(2). In J. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. state of Uttar Pradesh(3), this Court observed (at p. 1174):
"The rule that general provisions should yield to specific provisions is not an arbitrary principle made by lawyers and judges but springs from the common understanding of men and women that when the same person gives two directions one covering a large number of matters in general and another to only some of them his intention is that these latter directions should prevail as regards these while as regards us the rest the earlier direction should have effect".
These pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has bearing in the present matter and need to be factored on case to case basis for their applicability.
25. It was not the case that the Jayantilal Mistry's case had not attained finality and that the issues involved therein were no more res integra. The case of the RTI applicant was that on the basis of law laid down by the apex court in the Jayantilal case, he was entitled to the information sought by him. Thus distinction is to be made between res judicata and precedent. The applicant has been seeking on the basis of ratio decidendi of Jayantilal. In order to understand the precedent (ratio decidendi), we may have to discuss the findings of the Supreme Court in the Jayantilal case. The determination of the ratio decidendi i.e. the reason of the decision, is not easy as it might appear at the first sight. In the Supreme Court, each judge may state the principle in a different language, and hence it may not be possible to ascertain exactly what the ratio decidendi is. In Krishna Kumar V. UOI (1990) 4 SCC 207, while clarifying that the precedent consists only in the "inunciation of the reason or principle upon which a question before a court has been decided", the Supreme Court observed:
"The ration decidendi is the underlying principle, namely the general reasons or the general grounds upon which the decision is based on the test or abstract from the specific pecularities of the particular case which gives rise to the decision. The ratio decidendi has to be ascertained by an analysis of the facts of the case and the process of reasoning involved in the major consisting of a pre-existing rule of law, either statutory or judge made, and minor premise consisting of the material facts of the case under immediate consideration".
In Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab [(1979) 3 SCC 745] The Supreme Court has observed:
Page 24 of 37"22. ...A decision on a question of sentence depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case, can never be regarded as a binding precedent, much less "law declared" within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution so as to bind all courts within the territory of India. According to the well-settled theory of precedents every decision contains three basic ingredients:
"(i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct or perceptible facts;
(ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and
(iii) judgment based on the combined effect of (i) and (ii) above."
For the purposes of the parties themselves and their privies, ingredient
(iii) is the material element in the decision for it determines finally their rights and liabilities in relation to the subject-matter of the action. It is the judgment that estops the parties from reopening the dispute. However, for the purpose of the doctrine of precedents, ingredient (ii) is the vital element in the decision. This indeed is the ratio decidendi. It is not everything said by a Judge when giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi. In the leading case of Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Ltd. v. Haynes [LR 1959 AC 743], it was laid down that the ratio decidendi may be defined as a statement of law applied to the legal problems raised by the facts as found, upon which the decision is based. The other two elements in the decision are not precedents. The judgment is not binding (except directly on the parties themselves), nor are the findings of facts. ..."
26. The Supreme Court in its order dated 16.12.2015 in the matter between the Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry transferred cases (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 while clubbing other (transferred) cases i.e (Civil) Nos. 92 to 101 of 2015 and upholding, among others, the order of CIC dated 01.11.2011 inter alia held that the CIC order did not suffer from any error of law, irrationality or arbitrariness. Accordingly the Court did not interfere with the order of the CIC. The other transferred applications contained identical issues and the same were also dealt with on similar lines. It may not be out of place to Page 25 of 37 mention that the law laid down by Supreme Court under Article 141 is binding all authorities.
27. In order to understand the ratio decidendi, we may discuss the findings of the Supreme Court in Jayantilal Mistry's case. The information sought in the RTI applications included last RBI investigation and audit reports carried out by the Shri Santosh Kumar during 23.04.2010 to 06.05.2010 sent to Registrar of the Cooperative of Gujarat State, Gandhinagar on Makarpura Industrial Estate Cooperative Bank Limited; Last 20 years inspection (carried out with name of Inspector) report on above bank and action taken report; Report on all Cooperative Banks on liquidation, action taken against all Directors and Managers for recovery of public funds and powers utilised by RBI and analysis and procedures adopted; Name of remaining Cooperative Banks under observations against irregularities and action taken report and period required to take action and implementations. The RBI inter alia claimed exemptions under Section 8 (1) (a) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Similary, in transfer case no. 92 of 2015 the issue involved included advisory notes issued to the Hong Kong Branch of ICICI Bank.
28. In transfer case number 93 of 2015, the RTI applicant sought copies of inspection reports of NABARD. In transfer case number 95 of 2015 details of Show Cause notices of fines imposed by RBI on various banks were sought. The main contention of the RBI was that they were in fiduciary relationship with the banks and that disclosure of the information sought in respect of various banks could have destabilised financial position of the banks and could have adversely affected the economic interest of the county. Besides, the revelation of the information could have adversely affected the competitive position of the bank. Apart from claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (a), (d) & (e) of the RTI Act, 2005, the provisions contained under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the RBI Act 1934 and the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005 were relied upon. The RBI in its capacity as regulator and supervisor of the banking system of the country had access to the critical information which was held by it in confidence. The general provisions of the RTI Act could not override the provisions of confidentiality conferred upon the RBI by the special statutes referred to above. While rejecting the contention of the RBI and upholding the decision of the CIC, the Supreme Court discussed the fiduciary relationship elaborately.
29. The Supreme Court, after discussing statement of objects and reasons of the RTI Act, 2005, various provisions of the Act, judicial pronouncements:
Page 26 of 37Central Board of Secondary Education and anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. (2011) 8SCC497 UP Vs. Rajnarayan AIR 1975 Supreme Court 865; SP Gupta Vs. President of India AIR 1982 SC 149; UOI Vs. Association of Democratic Reforms AIR 2002 SC 2112; PUCL Vs. UOI (2003) 4 SCC 399 and Mardia Chemicals Ltd. V. UOI (2004) 4 SCC 31,1held:
"(i) The RBI does not place itself in fiduciary relationship with the financial institutions because the report of the inspections statements of bank, information related to the business obtained by the RBI are not under the pretext confidence or trust. In this case neither the RBI nor the banks act in the interest of each other. By attaching additional fiduciary level to the statutory duty, the Regulatory authorities have intentionally or unintentionally created an in terrorem effect. [Para 58]
(ii) The RTI Act, 2005 under Section 2 (f) clearly provides that the inspection reports, documents etc. fall under the purview of information which is obtained by the public authority (RBI) from a private body.
(iii) We also understand that the RBI cannot be put in a fix, by making it accountable to every action taken by it. However, in the instant case the RBI is accountable and as such it has to provide information to the information seekers under Section 10 (1) of the RTI Act. [Para 71]
(iv) Similary Sub Section (1) of Section 8, of the RTI Act, 2005, contains the exemption provisions where right to information can be denied to public in the name of national security and sovereignty, national economic interests, relationship with foreign states etc. Thus, not all the information that the Government generates will or shall be given out to the public. It is true that gone are the days of closed doors policy making and they are not acceptable also but it is equally true that there are some information which if published or released publicly, they might actually cause more harm than good to our national interest if not domestically it can make the national interests vulnerable internationally and it is more so possible with the dividing line between national and international boundaries getting blurred in this age of rapid advancement of science and technology and global economy. 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 right 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 Page 27 of 37 borrowing and foreign investment could in some cases harm the national economy, particularly if released prematurely. However, lower level economic and financial information, like contracts and departmental budgets should not be withheld under this exemption. 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. [para 76]
(v) That the provisions contained under Section 22 of the RTI Act provide overriding effect over all other Acts including the Official Secrets Act being a later law, specifically brought in to usher transparency and to transform the way official business is conducted. The only exception to access to information are contained in the RTI Act itself i.e. in Section 8 of the RTI Act.
30. The Supreme Court while upholding the order of the Commission dated 01.11.2011 did not ipso facto endorse everything said in that order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in plethora of cases highlighted the judicial discipline by holding that judgements of the larger benches should be followed or whenever, opinion differ the same may be referred to the Chief Justice for constitution of larger bench. It is true that the sovereign immunity principle in claiming privilege for any document has been converted into the public interest immunity wherein the final decision rests with the adjudicating bodies. However, there have been plethora of judicial orders highlighting the use of restraint by judicial bodies in substituting the wisdom over those who have been assigned the function of implementation of laws. The Supreme Court in Jayantilal case has categorically laid down principles as discussed above. However, other issues including the exemptions under Section 8 (1) (a) (d) & (j) have been left open and the same are pending adjudication in the writ petition (C 1159/2019) which will be discussed in subsequent paragraphs.
31. In an Article "Constitutional Rights, Judicial Review and Parliamentary Democracy", (published in Economic and Political Weekly Vol. LIV No. 15) Ashwini Kumar, Sr. Advocate and former Law Minister while highlighting the logic of balanced exercise of judicial power and judicial restraint has observed;
"The Contrarians persist with a view in favour of restraints, arguing that in a democracy, people exercise their sovereignty through elected representatives and not through the unelected judges who must defer to the wisdom of parliamentary majorities. Questions are raised not so much about the advisability of review jurisdiction itself but with its perceived overreach to encompass areas of governance considered outside its purview and about the finality of judicial wisdom. "Judicial supremacy," "judicial excessiveness," or "despotism of an oligarchy"Page 28 of 37
are seen as antithetical to democracy and contrary to its first principles. It is contented that the failings of democracy and inadequacies of the democratic process cannot be invoked to negate the core of the democratic principle, namely that ultimate sovereignty vests in the people. Thus, arrangements of governance embodied in the Constitution resulting from the exercise of their free will cannot be used to deprive the ultimate masters of the right of final decision over their destiny. It is argued that "juridification of politics and politization of the judiciary"
would be a loss for both the legislature and judiciary and that judiciary cannot act as a "censor of all governmental action."
Thus, the sovereign (citizen) having sent their elected representatives to the highest institution i.e. the Parliament and the Parliament having conferred administrative discretion on public authority through legislation the same may not be substituted unless there are grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. The Parliament through the RTI Act, 2005 has provided checks and balances for disclosing information by public authorities in their custody by providing exemptions under sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005.
32. Perusal of the following 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 hasheld that the disclosure of information relating to banks and financial institutions may be allowed taking into account the circumstances and nature of information sought for and not in a blanket manner. The relevant paragraphs are produced as under:
"76 But neither the Fundamental Rights nor the Right to information have been provided in absolute terms. The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 Clause 1 (a) are restricted under Article 19 clause 2 on the grounds of national and societal interest. Similarly Section 8, clause 1 of RTI Act, 2005, contains the exemption provisions where right to information can be denied to public in the name of national security and sovereignty, national economic interests, relations with foreign states, etc. Thus, not all the information that the Government generates will or shall be given out to the public. It is true that gone are the days of closed doors policy making and they are not acceptable also but it is equally true that there are some information which if published or released publicly, they might actually cause more harm than good to our national interest...if not domestically it can make the national interests vulnerable internationally and it is more so possible with the dividing line between Page 29 of 37 national and international boundaries getting blurred in this age of rapid advancement of science and technology and global economy... And when it comes to national economic interest, disclosure of information about currency or exchange rates, interest rates, faxes, 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".
33. The Commission further takes note of the conduct of the CPIO wherein the CPIO vide its letter has advised various banks to obtain the stay order from the Commission else they will disclose complete information to the RTI applicant. The conduct of the CPIO is arbitrary and not sustainable under law and the Commission issues strict warning to the CPIO for such conditional orders. He is at best free to take decisions on disclosure of information as per provision of RTI Act, 2005 giving a reasoned orders on the objections filed.
34. The Commission further observes that the CPIO while issuing notice under Section 11 of the RTI Act has given the opportunity to the Institutions to file their objections, if any, against disclosure of RAR/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/Institutions which are definitely not identical. Similarly, the FAA instead of passing a speaking order have also given a 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 various 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.
35. The Commission observes that rightful claims of the RTI applicants has to be adjudicated in the light of specific objections filed by the Institutions, Page 30 of 37 various judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts providing guidance on such matters. Opportunity of hearing should necessarily be provided and orders passed by the CPIO and the FAA otherwise should be reasoned, speaking and clear. In the present case, such orders should enumerate the principles for disclosure or non-disclosure of reports or various types of data, personal information, commercially sensitive information of clients or institutions, specifically excluded disclosures under various Acts, etc. which will be applied at the time of redaction of contents of these inspection/audit reports. Where it is observed that the RBI is willing to share the redacted reports proposed to be disclosed with the Institutions, the very thought process gone behind is should be mentioned in the orders of CPIO or FAA in their orders.
36. The Commission in this context refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in decision in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 it has held that:
"The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
5..............................The Act provides that the first appellate authority would be an officer senior in rank to the CPIO. Thus, the appellate authority, as per provisions of the Act, would be an officer in a commanding position vis a vis' the CPIO. Nevertheless, if, in any case, the CPIO does not implement the order passed by the appellate authority and the appellate authority feels that intervention of higher authority is required to get his order implemented, he should bring the matter to the notice of the officer in the public authority competent to take against the CPIO. Such competent officer shall take necessary action so as to ensure implementation of the RTI Act. "
37. The Commission takes note that writ petition filed by the banks bearing W.P. (C) No. 1159/2019 before Hon'ble Supreme of India and the very fact that the Writ Petitions are admitted and permitted to be contested by the parties.
Page 31 of 37However, no view has been taken till now by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The prayers made in the one of the Writ Petitions are:-
"(a.) pass an order striking down the impugned actions i.e. the letters dated 26.06.2019 issued by Reserve Bank of India to Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3;
(b.) declare that the information obtained by Reserve Bank of India in the course of its inspections as well as in the course of its regulatory and related functions relating to banks and financial institutions including information relating to customers/employees, information in relation to the management of the banks and financial institutions, business plans of the banks, trade secret of the banks and financial institutions, risk rating of the banks, requirement of regulatory intervention, any unpublished price sensitive information are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act;
(c.) direct the respondents to forthwith forbear from disclosing to applicants or otherwise information obtained by RBI in the course of its inspections as well as in the course of its regulatory and related functions relating to banks and financial institutions including information relating to customers/employees, information in relation to the management of the banks and financial institutions, business plans of the banks, trade secret of the banks and financial institutions, risk rating of the banks, requirement of regulatory intervention, any unpublished price sensitive information;
(d.) declare that private banks including the petitioner banks, unlike public sector banks are not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005;
(e.) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 particularly Section 8, 10, 11 and 19 thereof;
(f.) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to abide by the Disclosure Policy dated 18.06.2018 issued by the RBI;
(g.) issue such other writ(s), order(s) and/or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case".Page 32 of 37
38. It may not be out of place to mention that the Supreme Court vide order dated 28.04.2021, while dismissing MA No. 2342 of 2019 in Transfer case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 inter alia observed as under :
"The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants cited judgments of this Court in their support to distinguish a review from recall. It was argued that a review petition would require consideration of the matter on merits in case there is an error apparent on the face of record. Whereas, recall applications are entertained only in case the judgment is passed without jurisdiction or without an opportunity of hearing being given to the affected party. All the judgments that are cited on this point are cases where petitions for recall were entertained when a person directly affected by the judgment was not heard. In the instant case, the dispute relates to information to be provided by the RBI under the Act. Though the information pertained to the banks, it was the decision of the RBI which was in challenge and decided by this Court. No effort was made by any of the applicants in the miscellaneous applications to get themselves impleaded when the transferred cases were being heard by this Court. The applications styled as recall are essentially applications for review. The nomenclature given to an application is of absolutely no consequence - what is of importance is the substance of the application - M.C. Mehta v. Union of India12. A close scrutiny of the applications for recall makes it clear that in substance, the applicants are seeking a review of the judgment in JayantilalN.Mistry (supra). Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that these applications are not maintainable. We make it clear that we are not dealing with any of the submissions made on the correctness of the judgment of this Court in Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra). The dismissal of these applications shall not prevent the applicants to pursue other remedies available to them in law".
39. A comprehensive view has to be taken on the objection filed by the institutions. These objectives has to be deliberated and adjudicated in the light of Jayantilal Mistry's case and other judicial pronouncements relevant in such matter, some of which have been referred by the Commission in the above parts as well. The Commission while examining various objections realize that the Writ Petitions filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is seeking directions of the Supreme Court for non-disclosure of certain aspects of these audit/inspection report and any such guidance in these Writ Petitions will have direct bearing and provide further clarity to the CPIO/FAA in adjudicating various aspects of disclosure/non-disclosure of reports or the information/data which are part of these reports under the provisions of the RTI Act. The Page 33 of 37 Commission takes note that all the cases/second appeals filed herein are based on interpretations of RBI Vs. Jayantilal Mistry case and other relevant judicial pronouncements requesting for full disclosure vis-à-vis with exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act for non-disclosure of full or parts of these reports.
40. In view of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that the reports generated in the hands of regulatory public authority in discharge of its statutory obligations are information under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, as the regulator and the regulated entities are not governed by fiduciary relationship. The orders of the Commission to their effect has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayantilal Mistry's case and the position is unchanged even today. Various objections filed by banks/financial institutions, to be examined, analyzed and adjudicated upon, are related to various data and information submitted to the Reserve Bank of India by these financial institutions explaining their operations, commercial decisions, clients data etc. under statutory obligations can be disclosed as such. There are apparently two set of such information which have been shared by the institutions with the regulator under statutory obligation. First is the information/data of clients relating to their business/commercial operations, financial transactions, business and commercial strategy which is shared by clients with financial institutions in full trust and confidence and is held by them in fiduciary capacity, protected from disclosure under the RTI Act in their hands. Second set is the information relating to business strategy, decisions, transactions, other operational data etc. of financial institutions have been bearing on their competitive position which also enjoys the exemption from disclosure in their hands, if it is a public authority or otherwise, under the RTI Act. Some of such data, on case to case basis be sensitive enough for protection of national interest. The Commission is of the view that the protection of disclosure of information under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the hands of financial institutions does not evaporate once such data/information is shared, in good faith and trust, with the regulator under statutory obligation.Various observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayantilal Mistry's case also does not indicate so and decision of the regulator to consider redacting such data/information while disclosing the reports is aligned with this and other judicial pronouncements of Supreme Court and High Courts.
41. 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 Page 34 of 37 the Commission afresh. The Commission also expects that the CPIO will take view on various objections filed by the Banks and Financial Institutions and submissions made by applicant to reach the decision in favour or against redaction of various parts of the report on case to case basis. He has to factor the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayantilal Mistry case and other relevant judgments, some of which have been referred in this order as well. Hence, with these observations the orders passed by the CPIO and FAA in these matters are set aside and the cases are being remanded to the CPIO for adjudication afresh.
42. It is amply clear that Writ Petition Nos. 1159/2019 and 768/2021 and others tagged are admitted in Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein guidance and direction has been sought on non-disclosure of certain type of information which are essentially the part of the Annual Inspection Report/RAR, etc. These petitions also seek protection of interim communication between regulator and the regulated entity in the process of finalization of these reports or otherwise. It is obvious that decision in these Writ Petitions will provide clarity and guidance to the Public Authority on redaction/non-disclosure of a set of information inspite of being part of these reports which are open to disclosure. At this stage, any decision by the Public Authority will amount to pre-judging the issues pending admitted Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Various banks, financial institutions, respondent public authority and the RTI applicant have already impleaded party and are presenting their arguments before the Apex Court.
43. Hence, any decision of redaction or disclosure of information, without waiting for decision in the Writ Petition Nos. 1159/2019 and 768/2021 and others tagged may cause irrevocable damage against right of privacy and protection of commercial interest. Hence, the respondent public authority if expedient may wait for the outcome in Writ Petition Nos. 1159/2019 and 768/2021 and others tagged or seek clarification from the Hon'ble Court and accordingly decide these RTI applications by following process as enumerated in the earlier paras by the Commission in the interest of principles of natural justice. While disclosing the information they should be cautious in taking a considerate view balancing right to privacy, protection of national and commercial interest on one hand vis-à-vis larger public interest.
44. It is further observed that similar view has also been taken by the Division Bench of the Commission in file bearing nos. CIC/VS/A/2013/001488 and CIC/VS/A/2013/001805 dated 11.05.2017 wherein the Commission observed that "Having considered the submissions of both the parties, the Commission observes that since a similar issue is pending adjudication before Page 35 of 37 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. &Ors., it would be judicious to await the final outcome from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, on receipt of the final outcome from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter, the appellant shall be at liberty to file second appeal afresh, if he so desires. The instant appeals are disposed of".
45. With the above observations, the appeals are disposed of.
46. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु )
दनांक / Date : 05.05.2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
DEPARTMENT OF SUPERVISION
CENTRE-1, WORLD TRADE CENTRE,
CUFFE PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI-400005
2. MR. GIRISH MITTAL
(ORIGINAL APPELLANT)
Page 36 of 37
3. CPIO
I. L. & F. S. (THIRD PARTY)
4. CPIO
R. B. L. BANK LIMITED
5. CPIO
INDUSLND BANK LIMITED
6. CPIO
SAHARA INDIA F. SERVICES (THIRD PARTY)
7. MR. SHASHANK RAJ
(ICICI BANK LIMITED)
8. MR.BIPIN CHANDRA KHANNA
DGM (RBS), BANK OF BARODA
9. MR.SUNIT MALHOTRA
AXIS BANK LIMITED
10. MR. KUMAR MEDHAVI
YES BANK LIMITED
11. MR.BHAGYESH JOSHI
HDFC BANK LIMITED,
12. MR. T.V. SUDHAKAR
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED
13. MR.NARENDRA TIWARI
IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED,
14. MR. S. DINESH
(STATE BANK OF INDIA)
15. BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED
GENERAL COUNSEL
BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED
Page 37 of 37