Transparency Denied: CIC Issues Show Cause Notice to Bank of Baroda Amid RTI Evasion

In a striking rebuke to bureaucratic opacity, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has taken decisive action against the Bank of Baroda. Following a persistent struggle for information by the appellant, Prem Arora, Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam has ordered the bank to furnish complete documents and has issued a formal show cause notice to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Mr. Anjani Kumar Singhal, to explain why maximum penalties should not be imposed for obstructing the appellant's right to information.

The Paper Trail: A History of Evasion

The dispute began in 2023 when Prem Arora sought information regarding banking procedures, internal vigilance reports, and specific directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The bank initially dismissed the request, claiming the information fell under the jurisdiction of the RBI and, later, cited public domain availability to evade disclosure.

When the matter escalated to the CIC, a prior order on October 8, 2024, directed the bank to provide a revised, transparent reply specifically concerning internal vigilance reports. However, the bank subsequently attempted to block the disclosure by invoking Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act—exemptions typically meant to protect commercial confidence and individual safety—without providing any valid justification for their applicability.

The Conflict of Stances

The CIC observed a troubling lack of consistency in the bank’s legal positioning. Commissioner Ramalingam noted that the CPIO’s shifting narrative—from claiming a lack of jurisdiction to the sudden, late-stage invocation of legal exemptions—suggested an "afterthought" designed to deny access rather than a legitimate legal defense.

During the hearing, the bank representatives proved unable to explain how a standard internal inquiry report could compromise commercial interests or threaten individual safety, leading the Commission to conclude that the bank had failed to justify its refusal.

Key Observations from the Bench

The Commission’s order emphasizes the statutory obligation of public authorities to facilitate, rather than obstruct, the flow of information:

• "The Commission observes that the reply provided by the CPIO is inappropriate and seemingly misleading [...] as no exemption of Section 8 of the RTI has been invoked to deny the information."
• "The respondent failed to justify the applicability of the Section 8(1)(d) or 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act in this case and the reason for the afterthought about the same."
• "[The Commission] hereby directs the respondent... to furnish complete information to the appellant, in compliance of the order dated 08.10.2024 of this Commission."

The Path Forward: Accountability at the Helm

The CIC’s ruling carries significant implications. By issuing a show cause notice under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the Commission is signaling a move toward stricter accountability for public officials who disregard transparency mandates. Mr. Anjani Kumar Singhal has been directed to appear or submit a written explanation within 48 hours of the hearing, failing which maximum penalties will be considered.

For Prem Arora, the order provides a long-awaited resolution to her request. For the Bank of Baroda, and public authorities at large, the ruling serves as a cautionary tale: the RTI Act is not a tool for discretionary disclosure, but a mandatory framework that demands honesty, consistency, and a proactive commitment to citizens' rights.