Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

By an application dated 17.4.2007, the appellant sought for various information as to whether Catholic Syrian Bank Limited was a member of BCSBI and if so various other information connected with the same. The Assistant General Manager informed the appellant that BCSBI being a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and being a charitable trust was not a public authority in terms of RTI Act. Hence the present complaint. The complaint was heard on 18.1.2008 when the CEO of BCSBI was present during which he submitted that BCSBI was an autonomous body created for the purpose of rendering voluntary service to all the banks in the country including private, public as well as foreign banks as an independent watchdog to ensure that the banks deliver services in accordance with Codes and Standards evolved for "Fair treatment of customers". He also submitted that BCSBI was established in the year 2006 and for the first five years, the funding would be by RBI and that it is functioning from the premises of RBI. He further stated that at present BCSBI is getting subscriptions from all its members for creating a corpus for its future expenses. However, he contended that since BCSBI is not funded either by State or Central Government, it is not a public authority in terms of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and funding by RBI cannot bring BCSBI within the meaning of RTI. He also wanted to furnish further information to establish that BCSBI was not a public authority. The said information has been furnished. In the further submissions, it is stated that during the financial years 2006-2007 and 2007- 2008, while the RBI funding was of the order of Rs.75 lacs and Rs.135 lacs respectively, the contribution by members banks was to the tune of Rs.156 lacs and Rs.200 lacs, respectively and therefore even funding by RBI is not substantial. It is also stated that any decision to treat BCSBI would result in private and foreign banks withdrawing their membership and thereby defeating the very objective of setting up the Board. It is also submitted that BCSBI is wholly independent of RBI and is not subjected to any oversight or audit by RBI. It has also relied on the decision of this Commission CIC/80/C/2007/91 wherein it was observed that funding by a public authority which itself is not an appropriate government cannot be said to be indirect funding by the appropriate Government and therefore such an institution cannot be treated as a public authority. In the submissions by the appellant, it is contended that since all Reserve Bank money is Government money, any funding by RBI should be treated as funding by the Central Government.

DECISION:

Taking into consideration the object and purpose of the RTI Act, I have taken the view that any institution substantially financed, owned or controlled by any public authority would have to be treated as a public authority not withstanding the fact the there is no direct or indirect funding by an appropriate government. Therefore, I have to only examine whether RBI, being a public authority is substantially funding BCSBI. Even though for the first five years, RBI were to fund BCSBI, I find that its funding to be only less than 50% of the total funding of BCSBI for the last two years and that there is no managerial control by RBI over BCSBI. In view of this, I hold that BCSBI is not a public authority in terms of the RTI Act.