ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) “Inspection Reports/Risk Assessment Report made by RBI post completing the inspection or any interim report available of following entities for last 3 years available under BR Act or any other applicable Act/Rules etc:

a) HDFC Bank.

b) Yes Bank.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.04.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:- a) “As regards the Inspection Reports/Risk Assessment Reports for the FY 2018-19 & FY 2019-20, we have issued notice u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the bank concerned (Annex-1). On receipt of reply from the bank, further communication will be made.

As regards the Inspection Report/Risk Assessment Report for the FY 2020-21, it is informed that the supervisory process/action in the matter is not yet complete.

Disclosure of such information at this stage is considered premature in terms of Para 77 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment dated December 16, 2015, in ‘Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal Mistry Case’ [2016(3) SCC 525]. Hence the information is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.

b) As regards the Inspection Report/Risk Assessment Report for the FY 2018-19, we have issued notice u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Bank concerned (Annex-2).

On receipt of reply from the bank, further communication will be made.

As regards the Inspection Reports/Risk Assessment Reports for the FY 2020-21, It is informed that the supervisory process/ action in the matter is not yet complete.

Disclosure of such information at this stage is considered premature in terms of Para 77 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment dated December 16, 2015, in ‘Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal Mistry Case’ [2016(3) SCC 525]. Hence, the information is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2022. The FAA vide order dated 23.05.2022 observed inter alia as under:

“5. To provide an information pertaining to third party under RTI Act, the CPIO is statutorily required to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the Act, and to see whether the information sought falls within any of the exemptions under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:

‘RBI is supposed to uphold public interest and not the interest of individual banks.

RBI is clearly not in any fiduciary relationship with any bank. RBI has no legal duty to maximize the benefit of any public sector or private sector bank, and thus there is no relationship of ‘trust’ between them. RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large, the depositors, the country’s economy and the banking sector. Thus, RBI ought to act with transparency and not hide information that might embarrass individual banks. It is duty bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and disclose the information sought by the respondents herein.’ provide the information pertaining to banks/ financial institution under RTI Act in order to maximize public interest, but not without following the procedure contained in Section 11 of the RTI Act. At the same time, the Court has also observed that the excessive use of the right to information in case of national economic interest etc. may lead to harm, and emphasized on the time to release the information. The observation of the Supreme Court in Para 77 is reproduced hereinbelow:

when they are nurtured within protective boundaries. Any excessive use of these rights which may lead to tampering these boundaries will not further the national interest. And when it comes to national economic interest, disclosure of information about currency or exchange rates, interest rates, taxes, the regulation or supervision of banking, insurance and other financial institutions, proposals