2015 (12) TMI 1775 - SC - Indian Laws

RBI must disclose bank inspection reports under RTI Act as regulator has no fiduciary relationship with banks

Reserve Bank of India Versus Jayantilal N. Mistry, P.P. Kapoor, Versus Subhas Chandra Agrawal, Raja M. Shanmugam, K.P. Muralidharan Nair, Ashwini Dixit A. Venugopal and another, Dr. Mohan K. Patil and others and I.C.I.C.I Bank Limited Versus S.S. Vohra and others … and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Versus Kishan Lal Mittal, Sanjay Sitaram Kurhade

Reserve Bank of India Versus Jayantilal N. Mistry, P.P. Kapoor, Versus Subhas Chandra Agrawal, Raja M. Shanmugam, K.P. Muralidharan Nair, Ashwini Dixit A. ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and other banks can deny information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the grounds of economic interest, commercial confidence, fiduciary relationship, and public interest.2. Whether the information sought can be disclosed if it is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.3. The extent to which information can be provided under the RTI Act, 2005.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of Information on Grounds of Economic Interest, Commercial Confidence, Fiduciary Relationship, and Public Interest:The main issue was whether the RBI and other banks could deny information under the RTI Act, 2005, citing economic interest, commercial confidence, fiduciary relationship, and public interest. The RBI argued that it conducts inspections of banks and financial institutions and that the information collected is held in a fiduciary capacity, which should not be disclosed to the public. The RBI also contended that disclosing such information could harm the economic interests of the banks and the banking system.2. Exemption under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005:The RBI relied on Section 8(1)(a), (d), and (e) of the RTI Act to deny the information. Section 8(1)(a) exempts information that would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific, or economic interests of the State, or lead to incitement of an offense. Section 8(1)(d) exempts information including commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure. Section 8(1)(e) exempts information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure.3. Extent of Information Disclosure:The Supreme Court held that the RBI does not place itself in a fiduciary relationship with the banks as the information is obtained by the RBI under statutory duty and not under a pretext of confidence or trust. The Court emphasized that the RBI has a duty to act in the interest of the public at large, the depositors, the country's economy, and the banking sector. Therefore, the RBI should act with transparency and disclose information that might embarrass individual banks, as it is duty-bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Court also noted that the RBI's argument that disclosing information would harm the economic interests of the country was misconceived. The Court held that the exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act should be applied in exceptional cases and only with regard to certain pieces of information for which disclosure is unwarranted or undesirable. The Court concluded that the information sought by the respondents should be disclosed as it serves the larger public interest.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions filed by the RBI and other banks, upholding the orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the disclosure of the requested information. The Court emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and the need to empower citizens by providing access to information. The Court held that the RBI and other banks cannot deny information under the RTI Act on the grounds of fiduciary relationship, economic interest, or commercial confidence, as the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.