# RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY

- **Citation:** [2015] 14 S.C.R. 505
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-12-16
- **Bench:** M. Y. Eqbal, C. Nagappan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/reserve-bank-of-india-v-jayantilal-n-mistry-30613
- **Pages:** 60

## Headnote

A
B
Right To Information Act, 2005-ss.2(f), 8(1)(a), (d), (e)
and 10(1)- Information under the Act- To what extent can
be given - Whether can be denied to the public, by Reserve C
Bank of India on the ground of economic interest, commercial
confidence and fiduciary relationship with other Banks - Held:
The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary
that people have access to information on matters of public
concern - Therefore, right to information has been made as D
one of the fundamental rights u/Art. 19 of the Constitution
and also 2005 Act has been brought into effect- However,
neither the fundamental right nor the right to.information are
absolute - Therefore, all the information that the Government
generates is not required to be given out to the public- Thus, E
RBI cannot be put in a fix, by making it accountable to every
action taken by it - However, in the present case RBI is
accountable - The disclosure of information sought for does
not go against the economic interest of the nation - RBI being
a statutory regulatory body has the statutory duty to uphold F
the interest of public at large and not of other Banks - Thus,
there is no relationship of 'trust' I 'fiduciary relationship'
between RBI and other Banks - Even if it is held that RBI .
had fiduciary relationship with other Banks, s.2(f) would still
make the information .shared between them to be accessible G
· by the public- RBI is duty bound to comply with the provisions
of the Act thus bound to provide information u/s. 10(1 ).
Words and Phrases- 'Fiduciary relationship' - Meaning
of, in the context of s.8(1 )(e) of Right to Information Act, 2005.
H
505
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
A
Dismissing the matters, the Court
B
HELD: 1. The Central Information Commissioner
has passed the impugned orders giving valid reasons
and the said orders, therefore, need no interference by
this Court. [Para 82][564-F]
2.1 Fiduciary relationship is "a relationship in which
one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the
other on the matters within the scope of the fiduciary
relationship. Fiduciary relationship usually arise in one
c of the lour 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 or give advice to
0
another on matters falling within the scope of the
relationship, or (4) when there is specific relationship that
has traditionally be recognized as involving fiduciary
duties, as with a lawyer and a client, or a .stockbroker
and a customer." [Para 55][549-H]
E
Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr.
vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. 2011 (11) SCR
1028: (2011) 8 sec 497 - relied on.
2.2 RBI is a statutory body set up by the RBI Act as
India's Central Bank. It is a statutory regulatory authority
F 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
G banking company. It has several other "far-reaching
statutory powers. [Para 59][554-F·G]
. 2.3 RBI has no legal duty to maximize the benefit of
any public sector or private sector bank, and thus there
H is no relationship of 'trust' between them. RBI has a
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY
507
statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large, A
the depositors, the country's economy and the banking
sector. Thus, RBI ought to act with transparency and not
hide information that might embarrass individual banks.
It is duty bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI
Act and disclose the information sought by the B
respondents. [Para 60)[554-H; 555-A-B]
2.4 The RBI does not place itself in a fiduciary
relationship with the Financial institutions bec

## Text

_Characters 0–39,890 of 109,877. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39890 for what follows._

[2015] 14S.C.R. 505
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
v.
JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY
(Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015)
DECEMBER 16, 2015
[M. Y. EQBAL AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
A
B
Right To Information Act, 2005-ss.2(f), 8(1)(a), (d), (e)
and 10(1)- Information under the Act- To what extent can
be given - Whether can be denied to the public, by Reserve C
Bank of India on the ground of economic interest, commercial
confidence and fiduciary relationship with other Banks - Held:
The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary
that people have access to information on matters of public
concern - Therefore, right to information has been made as D
one of the fundamental rights u/Art. 19 of the Constitution
and also 2005 Act has been brought into effect- However,
neither the fundamental right nor the right to.information are
absolute - Therefore, all the information that the Government
generates is not required to be given out to the public- Thus, E
RBI cannot be put in a fix, by making it accountable to every
action taken by it - However, in the present case RBI is
accountable - The disclosure of information sought for does
not go against the economic interest of the nation - RBI being
a statutory regulatory body has the statutory duty to uphold F
the interest of public at large and not of other Banks - Thus,
there is no relationship of 'trust' I 'fiduciary relationship'
between RBI and other Banks - Even if it is held that RBI .
had fiduciary relationship with other Banks, s.2(f) would still
make the information .shared between them to be accessible G
· by the public- RBI is duty bound to comply with the provisions
of the Act thus bound to provide information u/s. 10(1 ).
Words and Phrases- 'Fiduciary relationship' - Meaning
of, in the context of s.8(1 )(e) of Right to Information Act, 2005.
H
505
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
A
Dismissing the matters, the Court
B
HELD: 1. The Central Information Commissioner
has passed the impugned orders giving valid reasons
and the said orders, therefore, need no interference by
this Court. [Para 82][564-F]
2.1 Fiduciary relationship is "a relationship in which
one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the
other on the matters within the scope of the fiduciary
relationship. Fiduciary relationship usually arise in one
c of the lour 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 or give advice to
0
another on matters falling within the scope of the
relationship, or (4) when there is specific relationship that
has traditionally be recognized as involving fiduciary
duties, as with a lawyer and a client, or a .stockbroker
and a customer." [Para 55][549-H]
E
Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr.
vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. 2011 (11) SCR
1028: (2011) 8 sec 497 - relied on.
2.2 RBI is a statutory body set up by the RBI Act as
India's Central Bank. It is a statutory regulatory authority
F 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
G banking company. It has several other "far-reaching
statutory powers. [Para 59][554-F·G]
. 2.3 RBI has no legal duty to maximize the benefit of
any public sector or private sector bank, and thus there
H is no relationship of 'trust' between them. RBI has a
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY
507
statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large, A
the depositors, the country's economy and the banking
sector. Thus, RBI ought to act with transparency and not
hide information that might embarrass individual banks.
It is duty bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI
Act and disclose the information sought by the B
respondents. [Para 60)[554-H; 555-A-B]
2.4 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 C
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 D
· effect. [Para 58)(554-D-E]
2.5 The plea of the RBI that the disclosure would
hurt the economic interest of the country is totally
misconceived. In the impugned order, the CIC has given E
several reasons to state why the disclosure of the
information sought by the respondents would hugely
serve public interest, and non-disclosure would be
significantly detrimental to public interest and not in the
economic interest of India. RBl's argument that if people, F
who are sovereign, are made aware of the irregularities
being committed by the banks then the country's
economic security would be endangered, is not only
· absurd but is equally misconceived and baseless. [Para
61][555-C-E]
.
2.6 The exemption contained in Section 8(1)(e) of
RTI Act applies to exceptional cases and only with regard·
to certain pieces of information, for which disclosure
is unwarranted or undesirable. If information is available
G
H
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 14 S.C.R.
A with a regulatory agency not in fiduciary relationship,
there is no reason to withhold the disclosure of the
same. However, where information is. required by
mandate of law to be provided to an authority, it cannot
be said that such information is being provided in a
B fiduciary relationship. As in the instant case, the Financial
institutions have an obligation to provide all the
information to the RBI and such an information shared
under an obligation/ duty cannot be considered to come
under the purview of being shared in fiduciary
C relationship. One of the main characteristic ofa Fiduciary
relationship is "Trust and Confidence". Something that .
RBI and the Banks lack between them. [Para 62][555-EH]
2. 7 The Public Information Officers (PIO) under the
D guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of
RTI Act, evade the general public from getting their hands
on the rightful information that they are entitled to. In
the present case, the RBI and the Banks have
sidestepped the General public's demand to give the
E requisite information on the pretext of "Fiduciary
relationship" and "Economic Interest". This attitude of
the RBI will only attract more suspicion and disbelief in
them. RBI as a regulatory authority should work to make
the Banks accountable to their actions. [Paras 64 and
F 65][556-C-E]
2.8 The RTI Act 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. From sectio.n 2(f), it
G can be inferred that the Legislature's intent was to make
available to the general public such information which
had been obtained by the public authorities from the r
private body. Had it been the case where only
information related to public authorities was to be
H
RESERVE BANKOF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY
509 .
provided, the Legislature would not have included the A
word "private body". In the present case, the RBI is liable
to provide information regarding inspection report and
other documents to the general public. [Paras 66 and
67)(556-E-F, H; 557-A-B]
2.9 Even if RBI and the Financial Institutions shared B
a "Fiduciary Relationship", Section 2(f) would still make
the information shared between them to be accessible
by the public. The facts reveal that Banks are trying to
cover up their underhand actions, they are even more
liable to be subjected to public scrutiny. [Para 68)(557C
.B-C]
3.1 It cannot be said that disclosure of information
·sought for will also go against the economic interest
of the nation. Economic interest of a nation in most 0
common parlance are the goals which a nation wants
to attain to fulfil. its national objectives. National interest
can't be seen with the spectacles(glasses) devoid of
· economic interest. It includes·in its ambit a wide range
of economic tra.nsactions or economic activities E
necessary and beneficial to attain the goals of a
J.
nation, which definitely includes as an objective
economic empowerment of its citizens. One of the tool
to attain this goal is to make information available to
people. Because an informed citizen has the capacity F
to reasoned action and also to evaluate the actions of
the legislature and executives, which is very important
in a participative democracy and this will serve the
nation's interest better which also includes its economic
· interests. Recognizing the significance of this tool it has G
not only been made one of the fundamental rights under
Article 19 of the Constitution but also a Central Act has
been brought into effect as the Right to Information Act,
2005. [Paras 72, 73 and 74][558-B-F]
·
H
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
A
3.2 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
B Section 8, clause 1 of Right to Information 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
c all the information that the Government generates will
or shall be given out to the public. Rights can be enjoyed
without any inhibition only when they are nurtured within
protective boundaries. Any excessive use of these
rights which may lead to tampering these boundaries
o 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
E or 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 sho\Jld not be withheld under this exemption.
F 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][559·
G A-HJ
3.3 The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes
it necessary that people have access to information on
matters of public concern. The free flow of information
about affairs of Government paves way for debate in
H public policy and fosters accountability in Government.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY
511
It ·creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a A
foundation of democracy. [Para 75][558-G-H]
3.4 Though 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
B
under Section 10(1) of the RTIAct. [Para 71][557-F-G]
Mardia Chemicals Limited vs. Union of India 2004
(3) SCR 982 : (2004) 4 SCC 311 - relied on.
State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 865 :
1975 (3) SCR 333; S.P. Gupta v. President of India
and Ors.AIR 1982SC149: 1982SCR365; Union
of India vs. Association for 9emocratic Reforms
AIR 2002 SC 2112: 2002 (3) SCR 696; PUCL
vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399 - referred
to.
Case Law Reference
2011(11) SCR 1028 relied on.
Para 35
1975 (3) SCR 333
referred to.
Para 39
c
D
1982 SCR 365
referred to.
Para 40
E
2002 (3) SCR 696
referred to.
Para 41
2003 (2) SCR 1136
referred to.
Para 41
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transferred Case
(Civil) No. 91 of 2015.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2011 passed
by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi in Appeal
No, CIC/SM/N2011/001487/SG.
WITH
T. C. (C) Nos. 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 and G
101 of2015.
· T. R. Andhyarujina, Prag P. Tripathy, Rakesh Munjal,
Shyam Diwan, A. S. Chadha, G. M. Akbar Ali, Sr. Advs.,.
Kuldeep S. Parihar, H. S. Parihar, Soumik Ghoshal,
H
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R. .
A
P. Narasimhan, S. K. Ray, Ms. Sanaya Dadachanaji,
Ms. Vernika Tomar, Ms. Daggar Malhotra, Bharat Sangal,
Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Nina Gupta, Mudit Sharma, Prashant
Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Ms. Neha Rathi, 0. Kuttan,
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, K. R. Anand, Avinash Kumar Jain (For
B Vivek Gupta), Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Ms. Srishti Rani, Dilpreet·
Singh, V. Balaji, M. S. M. Asai Thambi, C. Kannan,
Ms, Sripradha Krishnan, S. Nagarajan, Rakesh K. Sharma,
Amol B. Karande, Rajsaheb Patil, Shikhar Khare, Advs. for
· appearing parties.
c .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. The main issue that arises for our
consideration in these tr.ansferred cases is as to whether all
the information sought for under the Right to Information Act,
2005 can be denied by the Reserve Bank of India and other
D Banks to the public at large on the ground of economic interest,
commercial confidence, fiduciary relationship with other Bank
on the one hand and the public interest on the other. If the
answer to above question is in negative, then upto what extent
the information can be provided under the 2005 Act.
E
2. It has been contended by the RBI that it carries out ·
inspections of banks and financial institutions on regular basis
and the inspection reports prepared by it contain a wide range
of information that is collected in a fiduciary capacity. The facts
in brief of the Transfer Case No.91 of 2015 are that during
F May-June, 2010 the statutory inspection of Makarpura Industrial
G
H
·Estate Cooperative Bank Ltd. was conducted by RBI under
the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Thereafter, in October 2010,
the Respondent sought following information from the CPIO of ·
RBI under the Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:
sr. No.·
Information
.
Reply
souaht
1.
Procedure
Rules
and
RBI is conducting inspections
Regulations of Inspection
under Section 35 of the B.R.
being carried out on CoAct 1949 (AACS) at prescribed
operative Banks
intervals.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY
513.
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]
2.
Last
RBI
investigation and
The
Information
sought
is
A
audit report carried out by Shg maintained
by the bank
in
a
Santosh Kumar th during 23r
fiduciary capacity and was obtained
April, 2010 to 6
May, 2010 by Reserve Bank during the course
sent
to
Registrar
rn
the of inspection of the bank and hence
Cooperative rn the Gujarat
cannot be given to the outsiders:
State,
Gandhinagar
on
Moreover,
disclosure
of
such
MakarQUra
Industrial
Estate information may harm the interest
Co-op Bank Ltd Reg. No.2808
of the bank & banking system.
Such information is also exemft
from disclosure under Section 8( )
(a) & (e) of the RTI Act, 2005
B
.
3.
Last
20
years
inspection Same as at (2) above
(carried out with name
of
inspector) report on
above
bank and action taken rennrt.
4.
(i) Reports on all co-operative
(i) Same as at (2) above
c
banks gone on liquidation
(ii) This information is available
(ii) action taken against all
with Department
Directors and Managers for
recovery of public funds and
powers utilized by RBI and
analysis
and
procedure
adonted.
.
D
5.
Name
rn
remaining
coNo specific information has been
operative
banks
under
our
sought
observations
against
irregularities and action taken
reports
6.
Period
required
to take
No
specific
information
E
action and implementations
been sought
3. On 30.3.2011; the First Appellate Authority disposed
F
of fhe appeal of the respondent agreeing with the reply given
by CPIO in query No.2, 3 & first part of 4, relying on the decision
of the Full Bench of CIC passed in the case of Ravin
Ranchochodlal Patel and another vs. Reserve Ban/< of India.
Thereafter, in the second appeal preferred by the aggrieved G
respondent, the Central Information Commission by the
impugned order dated 01.11.2011, directed RBI to provide
information as per records to the Respondent in relation to
queries Nos.2 to 6 before 30.11.2011. Aggrieved by the
H
514
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14S.C.R.
decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC),
petitioner RBI moved the Delhi High Court by way of a Writ
Petition inter alia praying for quashing of the aforesaid order
of the CIC. The High Court, while issuing notice, stayed the
operation of the aforesaid order.
4. Similarly, in Transfer Case No. 92 of 2015, the
Respondent sought following information from the CPIO of RBI
under the Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:
~· r-- -· ·- ·- -
--- ---- ·-•.-- -· .... '
Sr. I
Information sought
Reply
No.
1.
The Hon'ble FM made a written In the absence of the specific
statement on the Floor of the details, we are not able to provide
House which inter alia must any information.
have been made after verifying
I
the records from RBI and the
Bank must have the copy of
the facts as reported by FM.
I
. Please supply copy of the note
sent to FM
2.
The
Hon'ble FM
made a We do not have this information.
I
statement that some of the
3.
banks fike SBI, ICICI Bank ltd,
I
I
Bank of Baroda, Dena Bank,
HSBC Bank etc. were issued
letter
of
displeasure
for
j
I
violating FEMA guidelines for
opening of accounts where as
some other banks were even
I
fined Rupees one crore for
such violations.
Please give
•1 me the names of the banks
I
with
details
of
violations
committed by them.
'Advisory Note' issued to ICICI
Bank for account opened by
some fraudsters at its Patna
I
Branch
Information
sought
about
"exact
nature
of
i irregularities committed by the
I bank under "FEMA
I
An
Advisory
Letter had
been I
issued to the bank in December, I
2007 for the bank's Patna branch
having failed to (a) comply with the
RBI
guiderines
on
customer I
identificatkln,
opening/operating
customer accounts, (b) the bank
not having followed the normal
banker's prudence while opening
an account in question.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY
515
4.
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]
Also gve list of ctrer AA - reg;ircJs. the
list~
ill eg;il ities comrritted by
su~rvisory action taken by LS,
IBL and other details of it may be stated !rat tre query
offences comrritted by IBL is too genera and nct specific.
thro~h various trancres Further, we may state that
in India and abroad aong
Su~rviSJry
actions
taken
with actiai t<i<en by tre were based on the scrutiny
Regulator irducing tre conducted under Section 35 d
nanes and desigiatims the Banking Regulation (BR)
of his officials branch fa.ct
The information in the
nane, type d dfence scrutiny rei;ort is held in
comritted etc. Tre exact fidu:;iary C<:llactty and the
naturB
of
dfences disclost.re of vlhi ch can affect
comrritted
by
Petra the ecomnic interest of the
Branch of the bark and comtry aid also affect the
other branches d tre commercial confidence of the
baik aid names of tis baik And such informatim is
officias invdved, type of also exernμ from disdosure
offence
oommitted
by under Section 8(1)(a)(d) & (e)
them
and
plllishment d
the
RTI
Act
(extracts
a\Aflrded
by
concerned erdosed). We, therefore, a-e
autmrity,
rarnes
and urable to accede to )Qur
desigration
of
tre request
designated authomy, wm
investigated
tre abcNe
case and his findings and
pmishrnent awa-ded"
Exact
na!t.re
of
irregularities comnitted by
!CIC! Baik in Haig Kong
In this regcrd, self explicit print
out taken from the website d
Securities
and
Futt.res
Comnission, Hong Kong is
erdosed.
5.
ICICI
Bark's
MoSCON I/Ve
do
not
rave
the
Branch involved in money infamation.
lamdering act
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 14 S.C.R.
A
---·
6.
lrrμisition of fine 01 ICICI We cb mt rave any inforrraion to
Bank under Section 13 of Ire furnish in this regard.
Rv1.A for loss d dorurents i1
floods.
B
----
7.
Copy of the Warning or Ps
regards
yrur
req..iest
fcr
'Advisory N'.lie' issua:I twice oopes/detals of a:Jviscry letters to
issued to the bark in tre last ICICI Bank, v-.e rray state that Sld1
i:IAo
yeas
and
reasors irtarration
is
exanrx
frcrn
reoorda:I trerein.
disdoSU"e urder &rtion 8(1 Xa)(d)
Name and desigiatim of tre
ard (e) d the Rrl Pd. The scrutiny
of records d the ICICI Bank is
c
~ authority wto CXl1du:ta:I this oorducted by DLr Departrrert of
1 meek ard his dedsim to Barking Sl.4Jen.1sim (DBS). n-e
issue an a:Jvisory note only Ctief <?eneral Mnagar-in cha-ge of
instea:J of penaties to te the CBS, Certre Office Reserve
irrpo9ad under tre Pd.
Bark
d
India
is
Shri s.
Kan.ppasarcy.
D
5. In this matter, it has been alleged by the petitioner RBI
E that the respondent is aggrieved on account of his application
form for three-in-one account with the Bank and ICICI Securities
Limited (ISEC) lost in the floods in July, 2005 and because of
non-submission of required documents, the Trading account
with ISEC was suspended, for which respondent approached
F
the District ConsLJmer Forum, which rejected the respondent's
allegations of tempering of records and dismissed the
complaint of the respondent. His appeal was also dismissed
by the State Commission. Respondent then moved an
application under the Act of 2005 pertaining to the suspension.
G of operation of his said trading account. As the consumer
complaint as well as the abovementioned application did ·not
yield any result for the respondent, he made an application
under the Act before the CPIO, SEBI, appeal to which went up
H
. . ·~·~.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY
517
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]
to the CIC, the Division Bench of which disposed of his appeal A
upholding the decision of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority
of SEBI. Thereafter, in August 2009, respondent once again
_ made the_ present application underthe Act seeking aforesaid
information. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate
_ authority, respondent moved second appeal before the CIC,
B
who by the impugned order directed the CPIO of RBI to furnish
information pertaining to Advisory Notes as requested by the
respondent within 15 working days. Hence, RBI approached
Bombay High Court by way of writ petition.
6. In Transfer Case No. 93 of 2015, the Respondent C
sought following information from the CPIO of National Bank
for Agriculture and Rural Development under the Act of 2005,
reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-_
SI.
Information Sought
Reply
No.
- 1.
Copies of inspection reports FlJ'f1ishing d
information is
· of Apex Co-operative Banks exempt under Section 8(1 )(a) of
of various
States/Mumbai the ITTIM.
DCCB from 2005 till date
2.
Copies
of
all Different
Departments
in
correspondenres
with NAB ARD deal with various
Mararashtra
State issues related to MSCB. The
Govt./RBVany other agency query is general in nature.
of State/Central Co-operative Applicant
may
pease
be
Bank from January, 2010 till specific
in
queiy/inforrnation
date.
sought
3.
Provide
confirmed' draft FLrnishing d
information is
minutes
of
meetings
d exempt under Sec. 8(1 )(d) of
Governing Board/Board of theITTIM.
Directors/Commtttee
of
Directors of NABARD from
April, 2007 till date
D
E
F
G
H
518
A -4.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 14 S.C.R.
R'Ovide
irtorrnaial
on
corrpliance of Sedion 4 of
Rn /ld, aJ05 by NllEAAD
Carpliance a\0ilable on tte
V1ebsite
of
f\11\BL\RD
i.e.
www.naterd.org
B 1-5-. --+-lnfo_11_1 a-tion- _rra_y_be pro.tlde:i -
on am
7. The First Appellate Authority concurred with the CPIO
and held that inspection report cannot be supplied in terms of
C Section 8(1 )(a) of the RTI Act. The Respondent filed Second
Appeal before the Central Information Commission, which was
allowed. The RBI filed writ petition before the High Court
challenging the order of the CIC dated 14.11.2011 on identical
issue and the High Court stayed the operation of the order of
D theCIC.
E
F
G
H
8. In Transfer Case No. 94 of 2015, the Respondent
sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the
Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:
si:-- -- . Information Sought- - 1--·. - Reply - .
No.
,
' 1.
:
As mentioned at 2(a) what is 'I Pursuant to the then Finance
RBI doing about uploading Minister's Budget Speech made
the
entire
list
of
Bank in Parliament on 281h February,
. defaulters
on
the
bank's 1994, in order to alert the banks
website? When will it be and Fis and put them on guard
done? Why is It not done?
against the defaulters to other
lending institutions. RBI has put
in
place
scheme
to
coUect
details about borrowers of banks
and
Fis
with
outstanding
aggregating Rs. 1 crore and
above
which are classified as
'Doubtful' or 'Loss or where suits
are filed, as on 31" March and
, 301h September each year. In
· February 1999, Reserve Bank of
1 India had also
introduced a
scheme
for
collection
and
dissemination of information on
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY
519
.
[M. Y. EOBAL, J.]
cases of willful default of barO\Mlrs A
with outstaiding balanoe of Rs. 25
lakh and abCNe.
M. p-esent, RBI
disseminates list ri above sad non
suit filed
'doul:tful'
and
1oss'
borrov..ed accounts ri Rs.1 crore
and above on haW-ymrly oosis (i.e.
B
as on March 31 ard September 30)
to
ranks ard
Fis. for their
oonf1dential use. The list ri nonsuit
filed
aooounts · of
VlilWul
defaulters ri Rs. 25 lakh and abCNe
is also dlsseminated on quarterly C
basis to banks ard Fis for their
confidential use. Section 45 E of
the Reseive Bank of India Act 1934
prohibits the Reseive Bank from
disclosing
'creel!
infarnation'
exoep: in the manner prolided
therein.
D
(i)
1-bwever, Banks and Fis
were advised on O::t6ber 1, 2002 to
. furrish information in respect of
suit-filed acCounts betv..een Rs. 1
lakh and Rs. 1 crcre from the
period erded March, 2002 in a E
phased manner to CIBIL only.
CIBIL
is plocing
the
list
of
defaulters (suit filed acoounts) of
Rs. 1 crore and abCNe and list of
willful
defaulters
(suit
filed
accounts) of Rs. 25 lakh and abo>e
F
as on March 31, 2003 ard onwards
on its v..ebslte (www.dtil.com)
9. The Central Information Commission heard the parties
through video conferencing. The CIC directed the CPIO of the G
petitioner to provide information as per the records to the
Respondent in relation to query Nos. 2(b) and 2(c) before
10.12.2011. The Commission has also directed the Governor
RBI to display this information on its website before 31.12.2011,
H
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
A in fulfillment of its obligations under Section 4( 1 )(b) (xvii) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 and to update it each year.
_10. In Tran sf er Case No.95 of 2015, following information
. was sought and reply to it is tabulated hereunder:
~- ___ __'._..
-
..
-
B
SI.
lnforrriation Sought
Reply
No.
1.
Complete and detailed information As the vidations ci wlich the
including
related banks were issued Show
documents/oorreiponderre/file
Cause
Notices
and
nd:ing etc of RBI on imposing fines subseQ.Jently
mposed
c
on some ranks for violating rues like peralties and based on the
also referred
in enclosed news findings
ci
the
Amual
dpping
Financial Inspection (AFI) of
the
banks,
and
the
2.
Complete list cf ranks which v..ere information is received by us
issued show cause notices before in a fidi£iary capacity, the
fine was imposed as also referred in disclosure
cf
S1£h
enclosed news clipping mertioning information
IMJUld
also default fer which sha.v cause prejudicialy
ctfect
the
nd:ioe was issued to each of such economic interests ci the
D
banks
State and ham the bank's
competttive position.
The
SCNs/fincl ng;/ reports/
associated
E
oorrespondences/CJ"ders
are
the ref ere
exempt
frcrr
disdOSlJ"e i1 terms of thl
prCNisions of Section 8(1 )(a
(d) and . (e) a the Rrl M.
F
2005.
2.
Ccrnplete list cf ranks which v..ere -doissued show cause notices before
fine was imposed as also referred in
enclosed news dippings mertioning
also default fer which sha.v cause
nctioe was issued to each of such
banks.
G
3.
List of banks out of those in query (2) Do
above where fine was not imposed
gMng detcils like if their reply was
satisfactory etc.
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY
521
. .
[M. Y. EOBAL: J.)
4.
List of tanks wlich wrre ultimtely The nemes of the 19 tanks
fourd guity and fines mentiaiirg also ard
ootaiis
of
penalty
arrrunt d fine on ea:h d the tank ard imposed
on
them
are
criterion to decide fine on ea:h of the furnished
in
Amex
1.
baik .
Regarding the crita"ion for
deciding
the
fine,
the
paialties
have
been
imposed on these banks for
contra1enti01
of various
directions aid instructions
such as failure to carry m.t
prq:ier due diligence on
user ar;propiateness ::nd
suitroility
of
products,
seUing renvative podu::ts
to users not having prqier
risk Management policies,
.
nci ver\fyi rg the unoortying
/aqequa:y d urdertying and
e~gble limits under past·
pafamance route, issued
by
RBI
in
respect
d
derivative traisactions.
5.
. Is fine itr4J00ed /action taken 01 sane N;J
other
b::nk
was
other banks aso ether than as paialized ether thai tJ-ose
mentioned in enclosed nevis dippng
mentioned in the. Annex, in
the caitert d press release
.
f'b.~10-2011/1555 of AJ:til
26,2011
.
6 ..
If yes please provioo details
f'bt Appicrole, in vieN d .
the infcrrnation prcwided in
qJeryNo.5
7.
Any other inforrnatim
Tte query is not si;edfic.
8.
Fl.le notirgs m rro1ernert .d tris Rn Copy
d
the
note
is
petftion and on every aspect d this Rfl .erdosed.
Petitim
.
11. In the Second Appeal,· the CIC heard the· respondent
via telephone and the petitioner through video conferencing.
As directed by CIC,· the petitioner filed written submission. The .
A
B
c
.D
E
F
G
H
522
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
CIC directed the CPIO of the Petitioner to provide complete
information in relation to queries 1 2 and 3 of the original
application of the Respondent before 15.12.2011.
12. In Transfer Case No. 96 of 2015, the Respondent
sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the
Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
1 .
2.
Before the
Orissa High
Court RBI has filed
an
affidavit stating
that the
total
·mark
to
market
losses
on
account
of
currency derivatives
is to
the tune of more than Rs.
32,000 crores Please give
bank wise
breakup of the
M TM Losses
The
Information
sought
by
you
is
exempted
under
Section 8(1)(a) & (e) of RTI
Act, which state as under;
8(1) notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, there
shall be no obligation to give
any citizen
(a} Information
disclosure
of which would prejudicially
affect the sovereignty
and
integrity
of
India
the
security strategic scientific
or economic interests of the
state, relation with foreign
State or lead to incitement
of an offence.
(e} Info rm a tio n a va ila b le to
a
person
in
his
fiduciary
relationship
unless
the
competent
authority
is
satisfied that larger pub lie
interest
warrants
the
disclosure
of
such
information.
What is the latest figure
Please refer to our response
available with RBI of the
to 1 above.
amount of losses suffered
by
Indian
Business
houses?
Please
furnish
the
latest
fipu res
bank
wise and custom er wise.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY
523
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]
-~--
3.
Whether the issue of de-ivatwe We have no information in this
A
losses to Indian exporters was matter.
discussed
in
any
of
the
meetings of Govemor/Dep.ity
Governor or senior official of
the Reserve Bank of India? If
so please furnish the minutes
B
of the meeting v.here the said
issue was discussed
.
4.
Any
other
Action
Taken We have no information in this
Reports by RBI in this regard.
matter.
13. The CIC allowed the second appeal and directed C
the CPIO FED of the Petitioner to provide complete information
in queries 1, 2, 9 and 1 O of the original application of the
Respondent before 05.01.2012. The CPIO, FED complied with
the order of the CIC in so far queries 2, 9 and 10 are concerned.
The RBI filed writ petition for quashing the order of CIC so far D
as it directs to provide complete information as p~r record on
queryNo.1.
14. In Transfer Case No. 97 of 2015, the Respondent
sought following information from the CPIO of National Bank E
for Agriculture and Rural Development under the Act of 2005,
reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
SI.
-Information Sought
Reply
No.
1.
The
report
made
by
NABARD Please
refer
to
your
F
regarding 86 N.P.A Accounts for Rs. application
dated
19
3806.95 crore of Maharashtra State April.
2011
seeking
Co-operative
Bank
Ltd.
(~
any information
under
the
information of my appllcation is not RTI Act, 2005 which was
available in your Office/Department/ received by us on 061h
Dwision/Branch,
transfer
this May,
2011.
In
this
application
to
the
concerned connection, we advise
G
Office/Department/
Division/Branch that the questions put
and convey me accordingly as per the forth by you relate to the
provision of Section 6 (3) of Right to observations
made
in
Information Act. 2005.
the Inspection Report of
NABARD pertaining to
H
524
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
MSCB
which
are
confidential in nature.
Since
furnishing
the
information
would
impede the process of
investigation
or
apprehension
or
prosecution
of
offenders, disclosure of
the same is exempted
under Section 8(1 )(h)
of the Act.
15. In Transfer Case No. 98 of 2015, the Respondent
sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the
Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
SI.
No.
1.
Information Sought
What contraventions and violations were
made by SCB in respect ci RBI
instructions on derivatives for which RBI
has imposed penalty of INR 10 lal41s on
SCB in exercise ci its powers vested
-under Section 47(1)(b) of Banking
Regulation Act, 1949 and as stated in
the RBI press rel03se dated Apri 26,
2011
issued
by
Departmert
ci
Communications RBI
Reply
The bark was penaized
along with 18 other bffiks
fa"
contravention
of
various
instructions
issued tty the Reserve
Bank of India in respect
of derivati..es, such as,
faihre ·to cany out due
diUgence in rega-d to
suitabUtty
of
products,
selting
derivative
products to users not
having risk management
poficies and not verifying
the undertying/adequacy
of undertying ffid eligible
limtts
under
past
performance route. The
information
is
also
availal:Je ·an oir website
under press ref03ses.
2.
. 3.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY
525
I
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]
Aease pl'Olide us the cqiies/retails d all O:lrrplants are received
the rorrplairts tied with RBI ~ainst SCB, by RlseJVe Bank of India
aco.Eing SCB of ms-selling rerivaive an:J as they cx:nstitute the
prcducts, !ah.re to call)' out due dligerre in third party infonratim, the
regard to suitabHily d produ:ts,mt verifyirg infmration requested by
the un:Jerlying'a:leq.iacy of unrerlying an:J you cannd be disclosed in
eligible Ii nits under i:ast i:ertcrrrarre an:J terrrs d Soction 8(1 )(d) of
varibus other
ron-carpliance d
RBI the ITTI Pd., 2005.
instru:tion on ct!rivaives.
Also, please provide the abO\e inforrratim
in the follo\l\ing fonret
. Dae d the corrpaint
Naro of the carplant
·Suqect matter d the corrpaint
Brief
clascrifiion of the
facts
an:J
aca.sations rna:le by the corrplaint.
/lJlj other infcrrration availa!je \l\ith RBI
with respect to violaion/cortraventions by
SCB of RBI instructions m derivatives .
Aease provide us the copies of all the
written replies/correspon:Jences rna:le by
SCB \l\ith RBI and the recordings of all the
ora subnissions rna:le by SCB to defen:J
an:J explan the violaions/oortra..entims
rraoobySCB
.The aclim has been taken
against the bark based m
the findings of the Amual
Rnanda lnsi:ection ~I)
d
the bank Wiich is
con:Jucted
under
the
provisions of Se::.35 of tre
BRAct, 1949. The fin:Jirgs
d
the
inspedim are
corfdertial
in
naure
intended specifically for the
sui:ervised ertities an:J fer
corrective aclim by them
The infonretion is received
by us in fiduciary cai:adly
disdOSLre of Wiich rray
prejuddaly
a'fect
the
ecmonic. interest of tre
stat(!.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
526
A
4.
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Please provide us the details/copies d the
findings
recordings,
enquiry
reports,
directive orders file llotings and/or any
information on the investigations conducted
by RBI against SCB in respect d noncompliance by SCB thereby establishing
violations 11f SCBV in respect of non
compliances
d
RBI
instructions
on
derivatives.
Please also provide the above information
in the followng format.
·
Brief violations/contraventions made by
SCB
(2015] 14S.C.R.
--------
--·-
As such the information
camot be disclosed in
terms d Section 8(1)
(a) and (e) of the RTI
Act, 2005
D
. In brief SCB replies/defense/explanation
against each violations/contraventions made
by it under the show cause notice.
. RBI investigations/notes/on the SCB
Replies/defense/explanations for each of
E
the violation/contravention made by SCB.
F
G
H
RBI remarks/findings wth regard to the
violations/contraventions made by SCB.
16. In Transfer Case No. 99 of 2015, the Respondent
sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the
Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
~
-
SI.
Information Sought
Reply
No.
1 .
That,
what
action
has
the 1.
Enquiry was carried
department
taken
against out against ~cams/financial
scams/financial
irregularities
of irregularities
of
Unfted
United
MercaAtile
Cooperative Mercantile
Cooperative
Bank Ltd as mentioned in the Bank Ltd. as mentioned in
enclosed published news. Provids the
enclosed
pubflshed
day to day progress report of the nevvs.
action taken.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY
527
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]
,---~.---~~~~~~~~~~~-,-,--,-,--~c--~~~ A
2. f\bte/explanation has
2.
· been called for from the
bank vide wr letter dated
That permission for qJering hem many
. extension COl.flters was obtained by
United Mercaitile O>operative B<11k Ltd
from RBI. Provide details of expendture
incurred· for constructir~i the extension
col.fliers. Had the. bank follov.ed tender
system for these constru::tions. if yes,
p!Thlide details ri corcema:l tenders: .
a"' Juy, 2011 regarding
errors
mentioned
in
enqJiry report.
3. The cther information
asked here is based on
the
condusions
ri
Inspection Report.
We
B
woud . like to state that
condusions found dU"ing C
inspections
are
confidential
and
the
reports are finalized on the
basis
of
information
received from banks. We
received the information D
from banks in a confident
capacity.
Moreo.ier,
disdosure
ri
such
information
may cause
damage to the banking
system
and
financial
interests· of the state;
E
Disclosure of ruch type of
information is · exempted
under Section 8(1 )(a) and
(e) of RTI Act, 2005.
Unttoo
Mercantile
Coq:ierative
Bank
Ltd.
F
was permitted to open 5,
extension counters.
The information regarding
expendtt.ure incurred on
constructicn
of
these G
extension counters and
tenders are not available
with
Reserve
Bank ci
India.
H
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14S.C.R.
A
17. In Transfer Case No. 100 of2015, the Respondent
B
c
sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the
Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
-
.
--
SI.
Information Sought
Reply
No.
1.
Under which Grade The George Tcmn The
classification
of
Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chennai, has banks into various grades
been categorised as on 31.12.2006?
are done on the basis of
inspection findings which
is based on information/
documents obtained in a
fiduciary
capactty
and
cannot be disclosed to
outsiders.
It is also
exempted under Section
8(1 )(e)
of
right
to
lnfonnation Act, 2005.
18.