I consider this to be some important issue for deliberation. I am giving
the details / background of the case so that the full import can be
properly understood.
INTERPRETATION OF RULE U/s 2(f) OF THE RTI ACT
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. The instant case refers to the applicant seeking information
lying in the hands of ICICI Bank (referred to as ICICI). The background
of the case is that one Company had taken loan from a consortium of
Banks, including some Public Sector Banks as well as ICICI. The
Hon'ble Court had ordered this applicant to extend a loan on behalf
of the Company to some third parties. This was subject to the charge of
the Consortium Banks, who had entered into an INTER-SE ARRANGEMENT FOR
SHARING OF SECURITIES. Pursuant to the Court's order this applicant
had petitioned all the 3 banks, (ICICI through RBI seeking invocation of
its powers u/s 2(f) of RTI Act) seeking details of their holdings. Based
on this the other Public Sector's Banks (PSB) had responded to this
applicant's RTI request positively. But RBI's CPIO had refused
RTI request taking shelter quoting the order of the CIC (Appeal No. 776
/ ICPB / 2007 dated 10-8-2007 Pravin Kamble Vs. RBI)
STATUTORY OBLIGATION : RBI A CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC MONEY
It is submitted that the Parliament had enacted the RBI Act
and RBI Regulations Act, to create an institution which could be the
ultimate custodian of public money and be the central nodal agency to
monitor all Banking operations, to safeguard public interest, and to
repose trust in the banking mechanism. The impugned order of the CPIO is
against this spirit, by taking shelter under the order of CIC dt.
10-8-07. Any order should be interpreted seeking reference to the
background of facts and circumstances and cannot be applied
unilaterally.
RECOVERY OF MONEY TO PSB – PUBLIC INTEREST
It is submitted that furnishing this information is of
paramount importance since this would lead to recovery of money due to
two PSB's, who have initiated action under DRT and unable to proceed
under the Securitisation Act due to several third party litigations. The
Amounts due would be more than Rs. 15 crores, as per information
furnished to this applicant under RTI, by the two PSB. Hence Public
interest outweighs any other consideration.
REFUSAL BY ICICI TO PART WITH INFORMATION – NO REPLY – NON
APPLICATION OF JURISDICTION OF THE CONSUMER FORUM
. It is submitted that this applicant had written to ICICI
Bank, seeking information about the amount due and nature of securities
held, but has received no reply since then. In these circumstances the
applicant left with no other alternative had to beseech RBI under the
RTI Act. Since the Applicant is not a "Consumer" of ICICI he
cannot approach the Consumer Forum for obtaining suitable directions.
ROLE OF RBI – NPA – SICK UNITS – PSB REPORTING MECHANISM
It is submitted that it is obligatory on the part of RBI to
collect information regarding loans advanced by PSB wherein borrower
becomes sick and declared as NPA and where proceeding initiated under
DRT. Here in the instant case the company is a defaulter of crores of
money, which would otherwise be non-recoverable, inspite of having asset
backing. The matter involves two PSB and a private bank. Public
interest, in recovery of loan and regeneration of funds back to the
Banking system, and in pursuance of the spirit of the Hon'ble High
Court order referred supra would necessary entitle RBI to invoke its
powers u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act to get the relevant information from
ICICI.
MISINTERPRETATION OF ORDER OF LEARNED IC / CIC BY CPIO / RBI
The order dated 10-8-2007 of CIC, has been misinterpreted by
the CPIO / RBI. The relevant portion of the order is
" I do not consider it possible to direct RBI to collect this
information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. "
The learned IC was referring to "that" particular piece of
information and did not generalize to mean any sort of information and
that particular case was pertaining to a seizure of car by the HDFC bank
and subsequent complaint to RBI. Thus the set of circumstances is
totally different.
SUPPLY OF INFORMATION BY OTHER PA'S (PSB) Vs. REFUSAL BY RBI
It is submitted that other PSB have complied with the
request for supply of information made by this applicant, but since he
has not been able to secure the information from ICICI through RBI he
has not been able to comply with the order of the Hon'ble Court.
ORDER OF THE DEPUTY GOVERNOR RBI 1ST AA
The AA has ruled that the purpose behind the request is
immaterial while responding to an application under RTI. The only issue
is whether the CPIO has acted in accordance with the provisions of the
RTI Act. He further pointed out that the CPIO is mandated to give
information only to the extent available with him. The definition of the
term " Information " appearing in section 2(f), according to the
1st AA's interpretation cannot be stretched to include that
information which can be accessed by the RBI in exercise of powers
conferred on it by other statutes for totally different purposes.
Therefore with this observation the 1st AA dismissed the appeal and
upheld the order of the CPIO.
Questions posed to this group
(1) The very definition of Information u/s 2(f) includes information
relating to any private body, which can be accessed by a PA under any
other law for the time being in force. The Dy. Gov. RBI himself has
admitted that RBI can access information from ICICI by exercising powers
conferred on it by other statutes albeit for different purposes. Thus is
this not a case of blatant contradiction by the RBI ?
(2) There seems to be a blatant misinterpretation of the order of the
CIC as per the above covenants.
(3) The IC/PB has observed that the interpretation of 2(f) has been the
bone of contention between the CIC and RBI on various occasions. She is
also of the view that only that information can be parted by RBI which
is available in their files. Only based on specific complaints RBI makes
inspections of the individual private banks / FI's on a selective
basis and not otherwise in a routine manner. Hence it is her view that
RBI cannot be directed to collect the required information u/s 2(f).
Since alternate remedy was available in the form of Consumer forums /
Civil Courts, the applicant could very well use them for getting
redressal in the subject matter.
Is this not strange ? 2(f) under the Act stipulates access to any
information, lying in the hands of any private body (herein ICICI),
which can be accessed by a PA (RBI) under any other law (statutes
conferred on RBI) for the time being in force. The key argument is
whether that information can be released (a) which is currently
available with RBI on the date of the RTI request or (b) that
information which can be accessed by RBI from ICICI
This applicant's case is that information has been broadly defined
under the Act, to include even those which can be summoned by a PA, even
those which are not currently in its files, provided that sufficient
Public Interest (sick loans – NPA's – lock up of public
funds) outweighs the harm to protected interests (ICICI –
vis-à-vis the Company).
The observation of the ICPB regarding alternate remedy available (in the
form of Consumer forums / Civil Courts) and hence rejecting the order is
also strange. The architects of the RTI Act, never contemplated that it
could be subverted or nullified by any authority for the only reason
that alternate remedy was available. If that were so, would any such PA
bear the cost / time spent in the alternate remedy compared to the
RTI's Rs. 10/- per application? Any order under the RTI Act, should
only speak of the relevancy of the provisions of the Act
Some food for thought ??
Sincerely
Shanti
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RSS Feed