Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78015
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, Chennai – 600 001 - Petitioner
Vs
The Central Information Commission - Respondent
W.P No.35875 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.35871 of 2023
Decided On : 22-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Jayesh B. Dolia, Senior Counsel For M/s. Aiyar & Dolia Assisted by Ms.B.Rajeswari
For the Respondent:Mr.S.J.Mohamed Sathik, Government Advocate.
The court held that while banks should disclose general terms of One Time Settlement policies, detailed internal policies are not subject to disclosure under the Right to Information Act, safeguarding business interests.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(d) - Disclosure of information regarding bank's restructuring/One Time Settlement policy sought - Court held that the bank must disclose the broad terms of the OTS policy but may not reveal its internal standards or exclusions - The Commission's order directing disclosure was set aside as unsustainable. (Paras 4, 19)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court analyzed its jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, affirming its authority based on the specific involvement of the local bank in the case. (Paras 2, 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner bank challenged the CIC order directing it to disclose its OTS policy in response to claims for relevant loan restructuring information by guarantors in a case of declared NPA. (Paras 1, 4)
Findings of Court:
The disclosure of the OTS policy should be limited to general terms to prevent jeopardizing the bank's operational confidentiality while adhering to public interest. (Paras 19)
Issues: Whether the order for disclosure of the bank's internal policy on OTS is justified under the RTI Act and the jurisdictional competency of the court. (Paras 2, 3)
Ratio Decidendi: The court stated that while public interest necessitates some transparency regarding OTS policies, banks are not obligated to disclose detailed internal decision-making policies that do not impact public knowledge. (Paras 18, 19)
Result: Writ Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal background on jurisdiction and information disclosure. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on the maintainability of the writ petition. (Para 2 , 3 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. observations on public interest and access to policy. (Para 5 , 6 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. framework for one time settlement policies and guidelines. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. discussions on the relevance of bank policies to borrowers. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. court's decision on non-disclosure of internal bank policies. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. final order and directive on returning the sealed cover. (Para 20) |
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 Commissio, 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
