INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
to its Governor Urijit Patel from the CIC, the Reserve Bank of India has sought time till November 26 from the commission, highest
adjudicating body in RTI matters, for furnishing its response
The case is likely to meet a dead end as Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu will complete his term in the panel on November 20 which
will be his last date of working, sources said
Acharyulu had asked the RBI to furnish response by November 16, but the bankers' bank has now sought time till November 26, sources
defaulters in spite of orders of the Supreme Court (Jayantilal Mistry case in 2015) which had asked the RBI to abide by one of the orders of
the then Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi calling for the disclosure of the loan defaulters under the Right to Information Act
governor should be considered as deemed CPIO under the provisions of the RTI Act for not disclosing the information and explain why he
should not face maximum penalty for obstructing information in spite of apex court orders
Acharyulu overturned earlier position taken by a two-member bench of the commission comprising the then Information Commissioners Manjula
defaulters of Rs 1 crore and above under the RTI Act
In 2017, they said that matter cannot be decided till Supreme Court gives an order in Prashant Bhushan case filed in 2003 wherein he had
sought details of loan defaulters of Rs 500 crore and above
Ironically, the Bhushan case which is going on in Supreme Court is not about applicability of the RTI in the disclosure of the information
to issue the notice to RBI governor, pertains specifically to disclosure of information of loan defaulters under the RTI Act
In Mistry case in 2015, a two-member bench of the Supreme Court upheld a CIC order by Shailesh Gandhi directing RBI to disclose the
information on loan defaulters and rejected all the contentions of the bankers' bank against disclosure
before the CIC bench (Prasher and Bhargava) to consider Mistry case judgement of the SC in 2015 but they thought otherwise to rely on
Bhushan case which is pending," Agrawal said
He said in the 2017 order they decided to keep matter pending till SC gave its order in Bhushan case in spite of clear directions of apex
500 crore and above, it was not about applicability of RTI on such a list, he said
Even after three years, the Supreme Court bench which is hearing Prashant Bhushan case has not stayed operation of its two-judge bench order
of 2015 in Jayantilal Mistry case
The RBI has been denying the information citing the clauses of economic interests of the state, the commercial confidence and the
information held in fiduciary capacity
deemed PIO responsible for non-disclosure and defiance of SC orders and CIC orders and directs him to show cause why maximum penalty should
not be imposed on him for these reasons, before November 16, 2018," he had said
He said great secrecy of vigilance reports and inspection reports was being maintained by the RBI with "impunity" in spite of Supreme Court
confirming the orders of CIC in Jayantilal case
Upholding the orders of the CIC to disclose list of loan defaulters and other issues, the Supreme Court in Mistry case had said RBI was
RBI has no legal duty to maximise the benefit of any public sector or private sector bank, and thus there is no relationship of 'trust'
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," it had said.
