Laws, Courts & Judgments.

CIC Upholds RBI 's Refusal to Disclose Axis Bank Fraud Details Under RTI Act

New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed an appeal seeking detailed information about alleged fraud in Axis Bank from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), upholding the RBI's denial under Sections 8(1)(j) (personal information) and 8(1)(e) (information held in fiduciary capacity) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The decision was delivered by Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam on April 19, 2024.

Case Background

The case, KISHORKUMAR BACHURAM KAPDI vs Reserve Bank of India (Case No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/621110) , arose from an RTI application dated December 7, 2023, filed by Mr. Kishorkumar Bachuram Kapdi . The appellant sought several pieces of information from the RBI, including:

* Copies of documents related to fraud classified by Axis Bank .

* Copies of specific letters (dated "21.07.2024" and "24.07.2024" - likely typographical errors in the record for an earlier year).

* Details of action taken against Axis Bank .

* Copies of Quarterly Returns on Frauds (FMR-1) and Progress Reports on Frauds (FMR-2) from 2019 to 2024.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of RBI, in a reply dated December 19, 2023, stated that some information was not specific or not available, and that FMR-1 had been discontinued. Dissatisfied , Mr. Kapdi filed a First Appeal on December 20, 2023. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), in an order dated December 27, 2023, upheld the CPIO's decision. Subsequently, Mr. Kapdi approached the CIC with a Second Appeal on February 20, 2024.

Arguments Presented

Appellant's Contentions: Mr. Kapdi argued that the information provided by the CPIO was incomplete, misleading, and evasive. He asserted that Axis Bank had indeed submitted the relevant information to the RBI.

Respondent's (RBI) Submissions: The RBI maintained that a suitable reply had been provided. Crucially, during the appeal proceedings, the RBI invoked exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act for information pertaining to specific frauds in Axis Bank . They argued that:

* Disclosure of fraud details would involve personal information of third parties, which has no relationship to any public activity or interest (Section 8(1)(j)).

* Information regarding a specific bank ( Axis Bank ) is held by RBI in a fiduciary capacity, making it exempt from disclosure (Section 8(1)(e)).

* The FMR-1 (Quarterly Return on Frauds) was discontinued, reportedly in March 2016 (the judgment notes a likely typo of "2026").

* FMR-2 (Progress Report on Frauds) contains updates on reported frauds, and this information, being bank-specific, is also covered by the aforementioned exemptions.

Commission's Observations and Decision

Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam , after considering the submissions from both parties and perusing the records, made the following key observations:

Application of Exemptions (Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e)): The Commission found merit in RBI's argument that information about specific bank frauds, if disclosed, would compromise third-party personal information and breach the fiduciary relationship between the RBI and the concerned bank. The CIC referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including:

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 27734 of 2012), which clarified the scope of 'personal information'.

Canara Bank vs. C.S. Shyam (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009), concerning employee performance records as personal information.

R. Jayachandran vs. Central Information Commission (W.P.(C) 3406/2012), wherein it was held that information submitted by banks to RBI is often held in a fiduciary capacity.

Initial CPIO Response vs. Later Submissions: The Commission noted that the CPIO's initial response to the query on Axis Bank fraud details stated it was "not specific," whereas later, exemptions under Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) were invoked. Despite this inconsistency, the Commission found the exemptions to be applicable to the nature of the information sought.

Availability of Information: For other queries where the CPIO stated information was "not available," the Commission found no grounds to disbelieve this, adding that a public authority is not obligated under the RTI Act to create information if it is not already held in material form.

FMR Reports: The discontinuation of FMR-1 was noted. For FMR-2, the Commission accepted that information contained therein, being specific to bank frauds, would fall under the purview of Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e).

Based on these observations, the Commission concluded that the information sought by the appellant was rightly denied by the RBI under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act.

Final Order

The Central Information Commission dismissed the appeal, stating there was no scope for intervention in the matter. The decision reinforces the protection accorded to personal information and data held in fiduciary capacities, particularly in the banking sector, under the RTI Act. No recommendations were made to the Public Authority under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act.