Failure to Comply: CIC Reprimands Bank of India Over Inadequate RTI Responses

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has issued a stern ruling in a series of appeals involving the Bank of India, underscoring the necessity for public authorities to provide detailed, point-wise responses to Right to Information (RTI) applications. Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam not only mandated the disclosure of withheld information but also initiated a disciplinary inquiry into the bank's representatives for their lack of preparedness during the proceedings.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The appellant, Premchand Bangaria, filed four separate RTI applications questioning the actions—or lack thereof—taken by the Bank of India regarding complaints he lodged against various bank officials. The bank's Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) repeatedly denied these requests, citing Section 8(1)(d) (commercial confidence) and Section 8(1)(j) (personal information) of the RTI Act to shield internal records from public disclosure.

Dissatisfied with the evasive responses and the failure of the First Appellate Authority to adjudicate his grievances, Mr. Bangaria escalated the matter to the CIC, alleging that the bank was systematically withholding information to protect its errant officials.

The Battle for Accountability

During the hearing, Mr. Bangaria argued that the respondent was deliberately violating the spirit of the RTI Act. He maintained that the bank had failed to address his queries regarding specific "action taken" reports and internal file notings, effectively creating a shield against accountability for its staff.

Representing the bank, the Law Officer insisted that previous responses had been provided in a timely manner. However, the Commission found this defense lacking, noting that the representative was unable to articulate the bank’s stance on individual queries, demonstrating a fundamental lack of familiarity with the case files she was tasked to defend.

Key Observations

The Commission’s order highlights systemic failures in how the bank handled these requests:

• "The CPIO’s replies in few of the second appeals are unsatisfactory and not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act."
• "The Commission takes grave note of the fact that the representative of the CPIO failed to advance case-wise arguments and was unprepared during the hearing."
• "The respondent is directed to re-visit the RTI applications... and provide point-wise reply and information to the appellant against the specific points mentioned above free of cost."

The Verdict and Its Implications

The CIC ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the Bank of India to re-examine the RTI applications and provide point-wise information, specifically regarding file notings and action taken on complaints.

Furthermore, the Commission asserted its authority by ordering the CPIO and the legal representative to submit written explanations within 15 days as to why they appeared before the Commission completely unprepared. This order serves as a corrective measure, reinforcing that the duty of a public authority under the RTI Act is not merely a formality, but a substantive obligation to provide transparency. For public sector units, this ruling acts as a reminder that the failure to engage seriously with the RTI process will no longer be tolerated at the highest levels of oversight.