Four major banks, Bank of Baroda, RBL Bank, Yes Bank and the State Bank of India, have approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) opposing disclosure of non-performing asset (NPA) data, defaulters’ lists, penalties and inspection reports, even as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has maintained that such information is “liable to be disclosed” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The disputes arise from separate RTI applications filed by Dheeraj Mishra, Vathiraj, Girish Mittal and Radha Raman Tiwari, seeking information including the top 100 NPAs and wilful defaulters of Yes Bank, inspection reports of SBI and RBL Bank, and records relating to a Rs 4.34 crore penalty imposed on Bank of Baroda following statutory inspections.
After the RBI concluded that the information could be disclosed under the RTI Act, citing binding Supreme Court precedent, the banks appealed to the CIC, the highest appellate authority in RTI matters. Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi has referred all cases to a larger bench, staying disclosure until final adjudication.
In a series of interim orders, Sethi noted that similar matters had earlier been heard by a double bench and required consideration by a larger bench. The Chief Information Commissioner has been requested to constitute such a bench.
The RBI had sought the banks’ views under Section 11 of the RTI Act, which provides for third-party consultation. However, it rejected arguments that disclosure would harm commercial interests, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Jayantilal N. Mistry case.
Also read: RBI flags insurers’ high-cost distribution strategies
In the Bank of Baroda matter, RTI applicant Radha Raman Tiwari sought records of “cases of non-compliance, as recorded in Statutory Inspection for Supervisory Evaluation (ISE 2021)”, along with show-cause notices and recovery details of the penalty. While BoB termed the information “confidential and sensitive”, the RBI dismissed the objection.
The RBI Central Public Information Officer recorded that the claim 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,” adding that exempt information had already been severed and “the objections of the BoB are not sustainable”. BoB has since moved the Supreme Court seeking reconsideration of the Jayantilal N. Mistry judgment.
RBL Bank similarly objected to disclosure of inspection reports for 2013-14 and 2016-17. The RBI countered that “there is no fiduciary relationship with the RBI and other banks” and cited Supreme Court contempt proceedings which held that “the Respondents are duty-bound to furnish all information relating to inspection reports; Any further violation shall be viewed seriously by this Court”.
Yes Bank opposed disclosure of data on top NPAs, wilful defaulters and inspection reports, but the RBI said unequivocally that “RTI Act, 2005, overrides all earlier laws in order to achieve its objective”, noting that “there is no ambiguity in the judgement… inspection reports and other material… have to be furnished”.
SBI, in another case, contested disclosure of show-cause notices and enforcement actions since April 2015. The RBI reiterated that the documents were “liable to be disclosed” after severing exempt portions and stressed the overriding public interest.
The outcome is expected to significantly shape banking transparency, depositor rights and regulatory accountability.
Follow us
