One of the exemptions in the disclosure policy relating to the department of banking regulation was that information relating to specific supervisory issues emanating from inspection or scrutiny reports received from other supervisory departments are exempted from disclosure.
The subject matter of the judgment in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry1 is whether the information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 hereinafter referred to as the RTI Act can be denied by the Reserve Bank of India RBI and the other banks on the ground of economic interest, companymercial companyfidence, fiduciary relationship or public interest.
In all, the Petitioner sought information for 10 queries in his application.
Though the Petitioner was number a party to the judgment of this Court dated 16.12.2015, he filed the companytempt petition as number furnishing the information that he sought for was in companytravention of the directions issued by this companyrt by its judgment dated 16.12.2015.
In all the cases that were transferred to this Court, the Central Information Commissioner directed the RBI to disclose the information sought for by the Respondents in the transfer cases.
The Appellate Authority under the RTI Act directed the RBI to provide information for queries 2, 9 and 10.
Any information obtained from submitted by banks Financial Institutions and held by the RBI in a fiduciary capacity was also exempted from disclosure.
The Petitioner has filed the above companytempt case aggrieved by the disclosure policy dated 30.11.2016, which according to him, is in direct companytravention of the directions issued by this Court by its judgment dated 16.12.2015.
The information sought by the Petitioner was number given by the Central Public Information Officer of the RBI in view of the exemption from disclosure under Section 8 1 a and b as the disclosure was number in economic interest of the State, and would adversely affect the companypetitive position of the third party.
After the judgment of this Court on 16.12.2015, RBI provided the information for query No.1.
Not satisfied with the said information and being companyvinced that the RBI was intentionally withholding information in spite of the directions issued by this Court, this Contempt Petition is filed.
344 of 2009 in the High Court of Orissa.
The learned companynsel for the Petitioner submitted that the exemptions from disclosure mentioned in the disclosure policy are companytrary to the directions issued by this Court in its judgment dated 16.12.2015.
1 pertained to information regarding the market losses on account of currency derivatives to the tune of 32,000/ crores as stated by the RBI in an affidavit filed before the Orissa High Court.
The Petitioner sought further information relating to the Sahara Group of Companies and Bank of Rajasthan.
In obedience to the direction issued by the Central Information Commission, RBI furnished information for queries 2, 9, 10.
The Central Information Commission directed the RBI to furnish information in respect of queries 1, 2, 9 and 10.
Query No.
Similar exemption was given to the inspection reports falling within the purview of the department of banking supervision.
However, the RBI filed a Writ Petition in the High Court aggrieved by the directions issued by the Central Information Commission qua query No.1.
No reply was given to query numbers 1, 2, 9 and 10.
The relevant paragraph of the affidavit filed in High Court of Orissa was also furnished to the Respondent.
Incomplete information was given for queries 2, 9 and 10 according to the Petitioner.
Contempt Petition C No.928 of 2016 The Petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act on 18.12.2015 seeking information relating to the inspection reports of ICICI bank, AXIS bank, HDFC bank and State Bank of India from 01.04.2011 to the date of filing of the application.
The RBI uploaded a Disclosure Policy on 30.11.2016 on its website by which the Public Information Officers were directed number to disclose virtually all kinds of information.
Contempt Petition C No.412 of 2016 The Petitioner filed an application dated 12.10.2010 seeking information from the RBI regarding the loss to the nation in the foreign derivative companytract cases.
The information was number disclosed by the RBI by claiming exemption under Section 8 1 a , d and e of the RTI Act on the ground that the disclosure would affect the economic interest of the companyntry, the companypetitive position of the banks, and that the information cannot be disclosed by the RBI as it received the same in a fiduciary capacity.
Contempt Petition C No.59 of 2017 The Petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act seeking details of the Show Cause Notices and fines imposed by the RBI on various banks.
The Petitioner sought a bank wise breakup of the MTM losses.
The reply given by the RBI was that there was numberreference to losses of more than 32,000/ crores on account of currency derivatives in the affidavit filed by RBI in Writ Petition Criminal No.
The facts of all the 11 Writ Petitions which were transferred to this Court are similar.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. The three Contempt Petitions are filed companyplaining of wilful and deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Transfer Case Civil No.96 of 2015.
The information that was sought by the Respondents in the transfer cases was refused on the ground that there was a fiduciary relationship between the RBI and the other banks, and hence, the information cannot be disclosed in view of the exemption under Section 8 1 d and e of the RTI Act.
