Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2766
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
The Chief Public Information Officer and Deputy General Manager (KYC/CSCE), Indian Bank - Petitioner
Versus
The Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi and Ors. – Respondents
W.P No.35875 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.35871 of 2023
Decided On : 22-11-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia, Senior Counsel For M/s. Aiyar & Dolia Assisted by Ms. B. Rajeswari.
For the Respondents: Mr. S.J. Mohamed Sathik, Government Adv.
Internal banking policies regarding loan settlements are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, while general schemes must be publicized for public interest.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(d) - Jurisdiction of Court - Writ Petition questioning an order of the Central Information Commission directing disclosure of the restructuring policy/OTS policy of the bank - Court held that such internal policies need not be disclosed as they are specific to each institution and its processes. (Paras 4, 18, 19)
(B) Public interest - Publicizing policies related to One Time Settlements is necessary for transparency and expeditious recovery of dues, however, detailed internal policies should remain confidential to each bank's discretion. Court underscored that publicizing general schemes benefits the public without jeopardizing the bank's authority. (Paras 14, 15, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Central Information Commission requiring them to disclose their restructuring policy related to One Time Settlements for loans, claiming it was exempt from disclosure due to commercial confidence. Respondents sought this information as they were directly affected parties.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the policy should remain confidential and upheld the need for banks to publicize general schemes, but not internal criteria for acceptance or rejection of specific proposals.
Issues: Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition regarding the disclosure of bank policies under the RTI Act, and the nature of information that must be disclosed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that internal policies are exempt from disclosure as they are specific to a bank and do not constitute public information under the RTI Act. The need for publicizing general policies was emphasized, while protecting the discretion of banks in individual cases.
Result: Writ Petition allowed and the order of the Central Information Commission set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction assessment in writ petitions. (Para 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 2. disclosure of ots policy in public interest. (Para 4) |
| 3. publicizing bank policies facilitates recovery. (Para 5 , 14) |
| 4. importance of disclosing policies for borrowers. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's support for reserve bank guidelines. (Para 10 , 11 , 19) |
| 6. each bank has unique settlement policies. (Para 12 , 13 , 18) |
ORDER :
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
This Writ Petition has been filed questioning an order in Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2023/113217 passed by the 1st respondent, Central Information Commission at New Delhi.
2. Even before proceeding into merits of the Writ Petition, the Court is under an obligation to answer one of the contentions raised on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents namely, that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition. It is contended that a similar order had been passed with respect to the same issue by the Central Information Commissioner and the Consortium of Banks similar to the petitioner bank had challenged the same by filing a Writ Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It is therefore contended that this Writ Petition is not maintainable within the jurisdiction of this Court.
3. In answer to that particular statement made by the learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner pointed out that the respondent in Second Appeal No.CIC/IBANK/A/2023/113217 was the Indian Bank at Chennai. It is further pointed out that the earlier order passed by the Public Information Officer of the Indian Bank, erstwhile Allahabad Bank also related to the bank at Chennai. It is further pointed out that name of the public authority in the appeal before the Central Information Commission was given as the CPIO / PIO, Indian Bank, Corporate Office, 66, Rajaji Salai, 5th Floor, Main Building, Chennai - 600 001. It is therefore contended that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition.
4. The Writ Petition has been filed questioning the impugned order of the 1st respondent, Central Information Commission, New Delhi wherein, in Second Appeal No.CIC/IBANK/A/2023/113217 by an order dated 31.10.2023, the 1st respondent had directed that the petitioner herein should disclose the policy which they adopt for either acceptance or rejection of One Time Settlement. The reasoning of the 1st respondent, could be reduced in their own words, which is as follows:
“The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case which emerge from hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that though the respondent provided some information to the appellant in response to his queries, he is dissatisfied on account of denial of the primary query, viz. the restructuring policy of the Bank. The reply given by the respondent with respect to the appellant's query about restructuring policy is erroneous because on the one hand they have decline response stating that the information sought was not specific while on the other hand, the respondent had claimed exemption under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act. The respondent failed to substantiate their case as to how the information about the restructuring policy was exempt from disclosure under (1)(d) of the RTI Act. The appellant contended that his primary query is limited to the general policy of the Bank for restructuring of loans and OTS policy, in order to repay his loan. The appellant is himself the guarantor and liable to repay the loan, hence, the information about OTS policy of the Bank is directly related to him. Hence denial of information by the Respondent to the affected party is legally untenable.
Thus, it is hereby directed that the CPIO of the Respondent Bank shall provide the restructuring policy/OTS Policy which is currently in operation, to aid in the process of settlement of NPA by the borrower. Disclosure of information about OTS policy of the Banks, particularly with respect to NPAs
