Latest Indian Business News Financial World - Latest Articles Latest World News

Two Landmark Judgments Asking RBI /NABARD to Disclose the Information

We have recently received the copies of two landmark judgement by Information Commissioner. These have been received by us through Shri Ganpat Subramanian [ ganpat@rtiindia.org ]

Case 1:

Appellant Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal,

1775 Kucha Lattushah, Dariba, Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110006

Respondent Mr. Jaganmohan Rao,

CPIO & Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India,

Department of Banking Supervision, Central Office,

Centre 1, Cuffe Parade,

Colaba, Mumbai - 400005

Case 2 :

        Appellant :                                                               Mr. Kishanlal Mittal
                                                                                         1305 Dhruv, Ashok Van,
                                                                                         Borivali East, Mumbai - 400066.
                                                                                         Ph � 09323462428.

        Respondent :                                                             Mr. P. Satish
                                                                                            CPIO & Chief General Manager
                                                                                            NABARD,
                                                                                            Head Office, Plot:C-24/'G',
                                                                                            Bandra-Kurla Complex,
                                                                                            Post Box-8121, Bandra (East),
                                                                                            Mumbai-400051.

In one case the respondent was RBI and in another case it was NABARD. The decisions are based on similar logics. Some relevant extracts from one of the judgements are :

On a bare perusal of Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, it appears to impose restrictions on access to information held by or under the control of RBI inasmuch as the inspection reports shall be provided only to the banking company, or can be published only by the Central Government after notifying the banking company. This is prima facie inconsistent with the RTI Act, which mandates disclosure of information unless exempted under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. Therefore, in accordance with Section 22 of the RTI Act, the provisions of the RTI Act shall override the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act as regards furnishing information. Consequently, whether or not information should be furnished has to be examined in light of Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only.

Further, the decisions cited by the Respondent were decided before the advent of the RTI Act and are
therefore not relevant in determining whether the information sought was exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act.

The Respondent has argued that while determining whether a fiduciary relationship exists or not, there is no need to look at if the information was given by choice or as a statutory obligation. The Commission does not agree with the Respondent on this count. However, even while solely relying on the definition of fiduciary laid down by the Supreme Court of India as given above- it is clear that while the banking companies may have given information to RBI in confidence or in trust, there does not appear to be any duty case upon RBI to act in benefit of such companies. In fact, when RBI carries out inspection of banking companies under Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, it does so in a regulatory/monitoring capacity. The information provided to RBI by banking companies is clearly in discharge of statutory obligations. Therefore, there does not appear to be a creation of any fiduciary relationship between RBI and the banking companies in this regard.

It is pertinent to mention once again that citizens have a right to know about the functioning and working of banking companies including any regulatory lapses. If there are irregularities in the functioning of institutions/ banking companies- as sought in queries 1, 2 and 3, citizens certainly have a right to know about the same. A larger public interest would be served by disclosing this information- under Section 8 (2) of the RTI Act. In view of the same, this Bench is of the considered opinion that even if the information sought was exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act,-as claimed by the Respondent,Section 8(2) of the RTI Act would mandate disclosure of the information sought.

The Appeal is allowed. The PIO is directed to provide the complete information in relation to queries 1, 2 and 3 of the RTI application to the Appellant before 15 December 2011 after severing details of customer related information and particulars of informers/ whistle blowers/ source of information.

Read the Full cases to know as to How Now RBI has to disclose certain information which they have reported in their inspection reports.

Case 1 : Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, vs RBI

Case 2 : Mr Kishanlal Mittal vs NABARD

Comments : Do you feel the above comments are biased ? If so, you can send your views alongwith the facts to counter the same so that bankers can have the real factual position. However, the comments should not be of any personal nature or against a group.

You can submit your comments on : allbankingsolutions@gmail.com

Disclaimer : The views expressed here are the personal views of our readers and www.allbankingsolutions.com may not subscribe to such views. The contents or data has not been verified / re-checked. In case, any abuse is noticed, the same may be brought to our notice at allbankingsolutions@gmail.com so that we can review the same.