Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
Subhash Chandra Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Reserve Bank of India – Respondent
CIC/RBIND/C/2022/116755
Private banks do not qualify as public authorities under the RTI Act, as they are not owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(h) - Definition of public authority - Complainant sought information from City Union Bank, claiming it to be a public authority under RTI Act - Respondent bank contended it is a private entity not covered under RTI - The Commission held that City Union Bank does not qualify as a public authority as it is not owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Public Authority - Definition and scope - The definition of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) is restrictive and does not include private banks - The court emphasized that the legislative intent is clear and must be followed. (Paras 7-8)
(C) Transparency and Accountability - The RTI Act aims to promote transparency in public dealings, but private banks do not fall under its purview as they are not public authorities. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
The complainant filed an RTI application seeking information from City Union Bank, asserting it is a public authority due to its public functions and funding. The bank denied the request, stating it is a private entity not subject to RTI.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that City Union Bank does not meet the criteria of a public authority as defined in the RTI Act, thus denying the complainant's request for information.
Issues: The main issue was whether City Union Bank qualifies as a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the definition of 'public authority' is restrictive and does not extend to private banks, emphasizing the need for clarity in legislative intent.
Result: Complaint disposed of; City Union Bank not deemed a public authority.
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.03.2022 seeking information on the following points:
- (i) “Complete list of “The Authorised Officer/s” for Credit-Recovery and Management Department of City Union Bank authorised to sign documents relating to recovery- proceedings including also under “The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002” (SARFAESI Act) for Delhi/New Delhi area from 01.01.2021 till date mentioning date/s for which various such “The Authorised Officer/s” as referred in the query held the post.
- (ii) In case different “The Authorised Officer/s” as referred in query (1) above are different for different branches of City Union Bank in Delhi/New Delhi area, such a list of “The Authorised Officer/s” for Chandni Chowk (Delhi) branch of City Union Bank as referred in query (1) above.
- (iii) Web-link providing information as sought in queries above.
- (iv) Any related information (v) File-notings on movement of RTI application.”
2. The Respondent replied vide letter dated 31.03.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
- “ Please note that The Right to Information Act 2005 will not be applicable to us, as endorsed under the preamble of the Act as well as section - 2(h) of the Act 2005 as defined. As per the proviso, the meaning mentioned for public authority will not include Private Bank. ”
3. Aggrieved with the Respondent’s reply, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 07.04.2022 stating inter alia as under:
- “City Union Bank is a 118-years old scheduled commercial bank of repute offering all types of banking-services including also savings accounts, current accounts, deposit accounts, loan accounts, debit and credit cards internet and mobile banking, ATM cards for general public. City Union Bank is substantially funded through deposits from general public, and also governed by banking rules framed by Government of India and Reserve Bank of lndia and thus controlled by appropriate government and thus becoming a public- authority under provisions of section 2(h)(d)(i) of RTI Act. 2005. Reference is also invited to full-bench CIC-verdict dated 01.06.2013 in file-number CIC/SM/C/2011/001386 and CIC /SM/C/201 l/000838 in the matter "Anil Bairwal and Subhash Chandra Agrawal versus lndian National Congress and five other political parties" wherein it was also observed that since political parties perform public functioning, these should be under purview of RTI Act. Likewise scheduled commercial bank also perform public functioning. these should be covered under purview of RTI Act.
- Assistant General Manager (lnspection Department) of City Union Bank vide letter CO/INSPECTION/2021-22 dated 31.03.2022 declined information holding that as per section 2(h) of RTI Act. meaning mentioned for public authority will not include Private Bank.
- I appeal that penalty may be imposed on concerned ones at City Union Bank and compensation be allowed to me as provided in RTI Act for declining information..”
4. The Complainant was present and assisted by Adv. Pranav Sachdeva in person during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Mr. G Ramakrishna, AGM, attended the hearing through video conference
5. The Complainant and the Respondent were heard in the context of the Complainant’s prayer to deem the Respondent office as a public authority as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission took on record the written arguments filed by the Complainant on 22.05.2024 & 26.05.2024; and by the Respondent on 21.05.2024 prior to the hearing. However, for the lack of clarity contained in the averred submissions regarding as to why the Complainant in praying for the Respondent to be declared as a public authority as envisaged under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the Commission directed the parties to file their respective written arguments specific to the amenability of the Respondent to Section 2(h) of the RTI Act in the matter within 2 days.
6. Subsequentl
