New Delhi: Four major banks -- Bank of Baroda, RBL Bank, Yes Bank and State Bank of India -- have approached the CIC objecting to the disclosure of information such as the list of defaulters and NPA, penalties and inspection reports, even as the RBI termed the records “liable to be disclosed” under the RTI Act.
RTI applicants Dheeraj Mishra, Vathiraj, Girish Mittal and Radha Raman Tiwari had filed separate applications with the RBI, seeking information, such as the top 100 NPAs, willful defaulters of Yes Bank, the inspection report of the SBI and RBL, and documents relating to a Rs 4.34 crore monetary penalty imposed following statutory inspection findings from the Bank of Baroda, respectively, among others.
These banks appealed before the Central Information Commission, after the bankers’ bank found that the information sought by RTI Applicants could be disclosed under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi referred the matter to a larger bench of the CIC to adjudicate on the issues raised by the banks.
In a series of interim orders, Sethi noted that similar matters were earlier heard by a double bench. Consequently, all cases have been referred to the Chief Information Commissioner for consideration by a larger bench, with disclosure stayed till final decisions are issued.
The outcome of these proceedings is expected to have a far-reaching impact on banking transparency, depositor rights and regulatory accountability, particularly at a time when public scrutiny of NPAs, penalties and supervisory lapses remains intense.
The RBI had sought the views of the banks before disclosure under the Third Party consent provision under Section 11 of the transparency law, under which a public authority seeks the view of the party whose details are being sought by the applicant.
The banks approached the CIC, the country’s highest appellate body in RTI matters, with their appeals challenging the RBI’s view, which said the information was “liable to be disclosed” under the provisions of the RTI Act, citing the Supreme Court judgement in the Jayantilal N. Mistry case, which is binding on it.
The banks claimed that disclosing regulatory information would harm their commercial interests. In one such case, Bank of Baroda (BoB) challenged the RBI’s decision to disclose documents relating to a Rs 4.34 crore monetary penalty imposed following statutory inspection findings.
RTI applicant Radha Raman Tiwari had sought copies of “cases of non-compliance, as recorded in Statutory Inspection for Supervisory Evaluation (ISE 2021),” along with show-cause notices and records evidencing recovery of the penalty. While BoB objected to disclosure, claiming the information was “confidential and sensitive,” the RBI rejected the argument outright.
The RBI Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) recorded that the bank’s contention that disclosure “may have an adverse impact on the bank’s business, marketability of the bank’s product and may hamper the competitive position of the bank, is not tenable.”
The RBI further noted that information exempt under Sections 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act had already been identified and severed, and therefore “the objections of the BoB are not sustainable”.
Banks including BoB, RBL, Yes Bank and SBI have challenged RTI disclosures of RBI inspection and enforcement records, citing pending Supreme Court review of the Jayantilal Mistry ruling. While the RBI insists disclosure is mandatory, the CIC has referred matters to a larger bench and temporarily stayed disclosure.