CIC Rebukes Bank of India for Generic RTI Denials: Directs Disclosure of File Notings Under RTI Act - 2026-06-06

Transparency Triumphs: CIC Schools Bank of India on RTI Compliance

In a stern rebuke to banking authorities, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has demanded greater transparency, mandating that the Bank of India provide specific, point-wise information regarding internal complaints. The order, delivered by Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam, underscores a fundamental principle of the Right to Information (RTI) Act: public authorities cannot use broad, generic claims of "internal matters" to shield themselves from accountability.

The Backdrop: A Trail of Unanswered Queries

The case involved four clubbed appeals filed by Premchand Bangaria, who had sought detailed information regarding actions taken by the Bank of India’s Zonal Office in Ujjain. Mr. Bangaria’s RTI applications focused on the progress of complaints lodged against bank officials.

The Bank's Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had repeatedly stonewalled these requests, citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act—claiming the information was "internal commercial" in nature—and Section 8(1)(j), which shields personal information. The appellant, left without resolution, brought the matter before the Commission, arguing that the bank was systematically withholding information to protect "erring officials."

A Heated Hearing and Procedural Lapses

The hearing took an unexpected turn when the respondent's representative, a Law Officer, appeared unable to address specific queries regarding the CPIO’s refusal. Commissioner Ramalingam censured the representative, noting that she was "unprepared" and "not well-versed with the contents of the replies." The Commission observed that the bank’s failure to provide point-wise arguments reflected a dismissive approach toward the statutory obligations imposed by the RTI Act.

Legal Analysis: The Limits of 'Internal Matters'

The Commission clarified that while the RTI Act provides exemptions, these are not blanket permissions to withhold administrative accountability. By specifically identifying which points required disclosure, the Commission drew a sharp line between protected commercial secrets and public-interest administrative procedures. It held that file notings related to the processing of citizen grievances cannot simply be brushed aside as "internal documents" when they directly relate to public office conduct.

Key Observations

The Commission’s order highlights the necessity of diligent responses by public authorities:

• "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 representative merely stated that replies were given in an appropriate and timely manner, whereas she was not well-versed with the contents of the replies given by the erstwhile CPIO(s)."
• "The CPIO’s replies to that extent were not sustainable in the eyes of law."
• "The CPIO should have addressed all RTI applications in a point-wise manner."

The Verdict: Mandating Compliance

The CIC directed the Bank of India to revisit specific RTI applications in the appeals CIC/BKOIN/A/2024/137161 and CIC/BKOIN/A/2024/133640. The bank is now required to provide comprehensive, point-wise replies—including details on file notings and actions taken on the appellant’s complaints—within 15 days, free of cost.

Furthermore, the Commission has directed the CPIO to submit a written explanation regarding the failure to provide a knowledgeable representative at the hearing. This decision sends a clear signal to public authorities: the RTI Act is not a hurdle to clear with boilerplate refusals, but a mandate to provide the transparency that every citizen deserves.