Holding

The RBI is not in a fiduciary relationship with banks and must disclose the information sought under the RTI Act, as the exemptions under Section 8(1)(e) do not apply.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) could refuse to disclose information obtained from banks under the Right to Information (RTI) Act on the grounds of fiduciary relationship, economic interest, or commercial confidence. The Court held that RBI does not have a fiduciary relationship with banks and its statutory duty is to the public, not individual banks. Consequently, the exemptions under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act did not apply, and the information sought must be disclosed unless specifically exempted under other clauses. The Court affirmed the Central Information Commission's orders directing RBI to provide the information and rejected RBI's claim that disclosure would harm the nation's economic interests. The judgment emphasized the importance of transparency, public accountability, and the primacy of the RTI Act over conflicting statutory provisions.

Issues considered

The RBI's claim of a fiduciary relationship with banks as a ground for exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
Whether disclosure of inspection reports and related documents would prejudice the economic interests of the nation.
The applicability of Section 8(1)(a), (d), and (e) exemptions to information obtained by a public authority from private banks.
The primacy of the RTI Act over earlier statutes conferring confidentiality on RBI.

Legislation cited

Banking Regulation Act, 1949s. 27, s. 34A, s. 35, s. 35A
Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005s. 17(4), s. 20, s. 22
Official Secrets Act, 1923
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934s. 45E, s. 45E(3)
Right to Information Act, 2005s. 10(1), s. 2(f), s. 8(1)(a), s. 8(1)(d), s. 8(1)(e)

Subjects

Right to Information Actfiduciary relationshipReserve Bank of Indiapublic interesteconomic interestSection 8 exemptionbanking regulationtransparencyinformation disclosure

Judgment

[2015] 14S.C.R. 505

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA A
v.
JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY
(Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015)
B
DECEMBER 16, 2015
[M. Y. EQBAL AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
Right To Information Act, 2005-ss.2(f), 8(1)(a), (d), (e)
and 10(1)- Information under the Act- To what extent can
be given - Whether can be denied to the public, by Reserve C
Bank of India on the ground of economic interest, commercial
confidence and fiduciary relationship with other Banks - Held:
The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary
that people have access to information on matters of public
concern - Therefore, right to information has been made as D
one of the fundamental rights u/Art. 19 of the Constitution
and also 2005 Act has been brought into effect- However,
neither the fundamental right nor the right to.information are
absolute - Therefore, all the information that the Government
generates is not required to be given out to the public- Thus, E
RBI cannot be put in a fix, by making it accountable to every
action taken by it - However, in the present case RBI is
accountable - The disclosure of information sought for does
not go against the economic interest of the nation - RBI being
a statutory regulatory body has the statutory duty to uphold F
the interest of public at large and not of other Banks - Thus,
there is no relationship of 'trust' I 'fiduciary relationship'
between RBI and other Banks - Even if it is held that RBI .
had fiduciary relationship with other Banks, s.2(f) would still
make the information .shared between them to be accessible G
· by the public- RBI is duty bound to comply with the provisions
of the Act thus bound to provide information u/s. 10(1).
Words and Phrases- 'Fiduciary relationship' - Meaning
of, in the context of s.8(1)(e) of Right to Information Act, 2005.
H
505
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the matters, the Court
HELD: 1. The Central Information Commissioner
has passed the impugned orders giving valid reasons
and the said orders, therefore, need no interference by
this Court. [Para 82][564-F]
B
2.1 Fiduciary relationship is "a relationship in which
one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the
other on the matters within the scope of the fiduciary
relationship. Fiduciary relationship usually arise in one
c of the lour situations (1) when one person places trust
in the. faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains
superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one
person assumes control and responsibility over another,
(3) when one person has a duty to act or give advice to
0 another on matters falling within the scope of the
relationship, or (4) when there is specific relationship that
has traditionally be recognized as involving fiduciary
duties, as with a lawyer and a client, or a .stockbroker
and a customer." [Para 55][549-H]
E Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr.
vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. 2011 (11) SCR
1028: (2011) 8 sec 497 - relied on.
2.2 RBI is a statutory body set up by the RBI Act as
India's Central Bank. It is a statutory regulatory authority
F to oversee the functioning of the banks and the country's
banking sector. Under Section 35A of the Banking
Regulation Act, RBI has been given powers to issue any
direction to the banks in public interest, in the interest of
banking policy and to secure proper management of a
G banking company. It has several other "far-reaching
statutory powers. [Para 59][554-F·G]
. 2.3 RBI has no legal duty to maximize the benefit of
any public sector or private sector bank, and thus there
H is no relationship of 'trust' between them. RBI has a
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 507

statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large, A
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 B
respondents. [Para 60)[554-H; 555-A-B]
2.4 The RBI does not place itself in a fiduciary
relationship with the Financial institutions because, the
reports of the inspections, statements of the bank,
information related to the business obtained by the RBI C
are not under the pretext of confidence or trust. In this
case neither the RBI nor the Banks act in the interest of
each other. By attaching an additional "fiduciary" label
to the statutory duty, the Regulatory authorities have
intentionally or unintentionally created an in terrorem D
· effect. [Para 58)(554-D-E]
2.5 The plea of the RBI that the disclosure would
hurt the economic interest of the country is totally
misconceived. In the impugned order, the CIC has given E
several reasons to state why the disclosure of the
information sought by the respondents would hugely
serve public interest, and non-disclosure would be
significantly detrimental to public interest and not in the
economic interest of India. RBl's argument that if people, F
who are sovereign, are made aware of the irregularities
being committed by the banks then the country's
economic security would be endangered, is not only
· absurd but is equally misconceived and baseless. [Para
61][555-C-E] .
G
2.6 The exemption contained in Section 8(1)(e) of
RTI Act applies to exceptional cases and only with regard·
to certain pieces of information, for which disclosure
is unwarranted or undesirable. If information is available
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R.

A with a regulatory agency not in fiduciary relationship,
there is no reason to withhold the disclosure of the
same. However, where information is. required by
mandate of law to be provided to an authority, it cannot
be said that such information is being provided in a
B fiduciary relationship. As in the instant case, the Financial
institutions have an obligation to provide all the
information to the RBI and such an information shared
under an obligation/ duty cannot be considered to come
under the purview of being shared in fiduciary
C relationship. One of the main characteristic ofa Fiduciary
relationship is "Trust and Confidence". Something that .
RBI and the Banks lack between them. [Para 62][555-E-
H]
2. 7 The Public Information Officers (PIO) under the
D guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of
RTI Act, evade the general public from getting their hands
on the rightful information that they are entitled to. In
the present case, the RBI and the Banks have
sidestepped the General public's demand to give the
E requisite information on the pretext of "Fiduciary
relationship" and "Economic Interest". This attitude of
the RBI will only attract more suspicion and disbelief in
them. RBI as a regulatory authority should work to make
the Banks accountable to their actions. [Paras 64 and
F 65][556-C-E]
2.8 The RTI Act under Section 2(f) clearly provides
that the inspection reports, documents etc. fall under the
purview of "Information" which is obtained by the public
authority (RBI) from a private body. From sectio.n 2(f), it
G can be inferred that the Legislature's intent was to make
available to the general public such information which
had been obtained by the public authorities from the r

private body. Had it been the case where only
information related to public authorities was to be
H
RESERVE BANKOF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 509 .

provided, the Legislature would not have included the A
word "private body". In the present case, the RBI is liable
to provide information regarding inspection report and
other documents to the general public. [Paras 66 and
67)(556-E-F, H; 557-A-B]
2.9 Even if RBI and the Financial Institutions shared B
a "Fiduciary Relationship", Section 2(f) would still make
the information shared between them to be accessible
by the public. The facts reveal that Banks are trying to
cover up their underhand actions, they are even more
liable to be subjected to public scrutiny. [Para 68)(557- C
.B-C]
3.1 It cannot be said that disclosure of information
·sought for will also go against the economic interest
of the nation. Economic interest of a nation in most 0
common parlance are the goals which a nation wants
to attain to fulfil. its national objectives. National interest
can't be seen with the spectacles(glasses) devoid of
· economic interest. It includes·in its ambit a wide range
of economic tra.nsactions or economic activities E
necessary and beneficial to attain the goals of a
J. nation, which definitely includes as an objective
economic empowerment of its citizens. One of the tool
to attain this goal is to make information available to
people. Because an informed citizen has the capacity F
to reasoned action and also to evaluate the actions of
the legislature and executives, which is very important
in a participative democracy and this will serve the
nation's interest better which also includes its economic
· interests. Recognizing the significance of this tool it has G
not only been made one of the fundamental rights under
Article 19 of the Constitution but also a Central Act has
been brought into effect as the Right to Information Act,
2005. [Paras 72, 73 and 74][558-B-F] ·

H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A 3.2 Neither the Fundamental Rights nor the Right
to Information have been provided in absolute terms.
The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19
Clause 1(a) are restricted under Article 19 clause 2 on
the grounds of national and societal interest. Similarly
B Section 8, clause 1 of Right to Information Act, 2005,
contains the exemption provisions where right to
information can be denied to public in the name of
national security and sovereignty, national economic
interests, relations with foreign states etc. Thus, not
c all the information that the Government generates will
or shall be given out to the public. Rights can be enjoyed
without any inhibition only when they are nurtured within
protective boundaries. Any excessive use of these
rights which may lead to tampering these boundaries
o 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 for expenditure
E or borrowing and foreign investment could in some
cases harm the national economy, particularly if
released prematurely. However, lower level economic
and financial information, like contracts and departmental
budgets sho\Jld not be withheld under this exemption.
F This makes it necessary to think when or at what stage
an information is to be provided i.e., the appropriate
time of providing the information which will depend on
nature of information sought for and the consequences
it will lead to after coming in public domain. [Para 76][559·
G A-HJ
3.3 The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes
it necessary that people have access to information on
matters of public concern. The free flow of information
about affairs of Government paves way for debate in
H public policy and fosters accountability in Government.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 511

It ·creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a A
foundation of democracy. [Para 75][558-G-H]
3.4 Though the RBI cannot be put in a fix, by making
it accountable to every action taken by it. However, in
the instant case the RBI is accountable and as such it
has to provide information to the information seekers B
under Section 10(1) of the RTIAct. [Para 71][557-F-G]
Mardia Chemicals Limited vs. Union of India 2004
(3) SCR 982 : (2004) 4 SCC 311 - relied on.
State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 865 :
1975 (3) SCR 333; S.P. Gupta v. President of India
c
and Ors.AIR 1982SC149: 1982SCR365; Union
of India vs. Association for 9emocratic Reforms
AIR 2002 SC 2112: 2002 (3) SCR 696; PUCL
vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399 - referred
to.
D
Case Law Reference
2011(11) SCR 1028 relied on. Para 35
1975 (3) SCR 333 referred to. Para 39
1982 SCR 365 referred to. Para 40 E
2002 (3) SCR 696 referred to. Para 41
2003 (2) SCR 1136 referred to. Para 41
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transferred Case
(Civil) No. 91 of 2015. F
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2011 passed
by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi in Appeal
No, CIC/SM/N2011/001487/SG.
WITH
T. C. (C) Nos. 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 and G
101 of2015.
· T. R. Andhyarujina, Prag P. Tripathy, Rakesh Munjal,
Shyam Diwan, A. S. Chadha, G. M. Akbar Ali, Sr. Advs.,.
Kuldeep S. Parihar, H. S. Parihar, Soumik Ghoshal,
H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R. .

A P. Narasimhan, S. K. Ray, Ms. Sanaya Dadachanaji,
Ms. Vernika Tomar, Ms. Daggar Malhotra, Bharat Sangal,
Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Nina Gupta, Mudit Sharma, Prashant
Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Ms. Neha Rathi, 0. Kuttan,
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, K. R. Anand, Avinash Kumar Jain (For
B Vivek Gupta), Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Ms. Srishti Rani, Dilpreet·
Singh, V. Balaji, M. S. M. Asai Thambi, C. Kannan,
Ms, Sripradha Krishnan, S. Nagarajan, Rakesh K. Sharma,
Amol B. Karande, Rajsaheb Patil, Shikhar Khare, Advs. for
· appearing parties.
c. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. The main issue that arises for our
consideration in these tr.ansferred cases is as to whether all
the information sought for under the Right to Information Act,
2005 can be denied by the Reserve Bank of India and other
D Banks to the public at large on the ground of economic interest,
commercial confidence, fiduciary relationship with other Bank
on the one hand and the public interest on the other. If the
answer to above question is in negative, then upto what extent
the information can be provided under the 2005 Act.
E 2. It has been contended by the RBI that it carries out ·
inspections of banks and financial institutions on regular basis
and the inspection reports prepared by it contain a wide range
of information that is collected in a fiduciary capacity. The facts
in brief of the Transfer Case No.91 of 2015 are that during
F May-June, 2010 the statutory inspection of Makarpura Industrial
·Estate Cooperative Bank Ltd. was conducted by RBI under
the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Thereafter, in October 2010,
the Respondent sought following information from the CPIO of ·
RBI under the Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:
G .
sr. No.· Information Reply
souaht
1. Procedure Rules and RBI is conducting inspections
Regulations of Inspection under Section 35 of the B.R.
being carried out on Co- Act 1949 (AACS) at prescribed
operative Banks intervals.
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 513.
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

2. Last RBI investigation and The Information sought is A
audit report carried out by Shg maintained by the bank in a
Santosh Kumar thduring 23r fiduciary capacity and was obtained
April, 2010 to 6 May, 2010 by Reserve Bank during the course
sent to Registrar rn the of inspection of the bank and hence
Cooperative rn the Gujarat cannot be given to the outsiders:
State, Gandhinagar on Moreover, disclosure of such
MakarQUra Industrial Estate information may harm the interest
Co-op Bank Ltd Reg. No.2808 of the bank & banking system.
Such information is also exemft
B
from disclosure under Section 8( )
(a) & (e) of the RTI Act, 2005
.

3. Last 20 years inspection Same as at (2) above
(carried out with name of
inspector) report on above
bank and action taken rennrt.
4. (i) Reports on all co-operative (i) Same as at (2) above c
banks gone on liquidation
(ii) This information is available
(ii) action taken against all with Department
Directors and Managers for
recovery of public funds and
powers utilized by RBI and
analysis and procedure
adonted. . D
5. Name rn remaining co- No specific information has been
operative banks under our sought
observations against
irregularities and action taken
reports

6. Period required to take No specific information E
action and implementations been sought

3. On 30.3.2011; the First Appellate Authority disposed F
of fhe appeal of the respondent agreeing with the reply given
by CPIO in query No.2, 3 & first part of 4, relying on the decision
of the Full Bench of CIC passed in the case of Ravin
Ranchochodlal Patel and another vs. Reserve Ban/< of India.
Thereafter, in the second appeal preferred by the aggrieved G
respondent, the Central Information Commission by the
impugned order dated 01.11.2011, directed RBI to provide
information as per records to the Respondent in relation to
queries Nos.2 to 6 before 30.11.2011. Aggrieved by the
H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R.

A decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC),
petitioner RBI moved the Delhi High Court by way of a Writ
Petition inter alia praying for quashing of the aforesaid order
of the CIC. The High Court, while issuing notice, stayed the
operation of the aforesaid order.
B 4. Similarly, in Transfer Case No. 92 of 2015, the
Respondent sought following information from the CPIO of RBI
under the Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:
~·

Sr.
r--
I
-· ·- ·- -
Information sought
--- - - - - ·- •.-- -· .... '
Reply
No.
c
1. The Hon'ble FM made a written In the absence of the specific
statement on the Floor of the details, we are not able to provide
House which inter alia must any information.
have been made after verifying
the records from RBI and the
Bank must have the copy of
D I. the facts as reported by FM.
Please supply copy of the note
sent to FM
I
2. The Hon'ble FM made a We do not have this information.

I
statement that some of the
banks fike SBI, ICICI Bank ltd,
Bank of Baroda, Dena Bank,
I
E HSBC Bank etc. were issued
Iviolating
letter of displeasure for j
FEMA guidelines for
opening of accounts where as
Isome other banks were even
fined Rupees one crore for

F Ime
•
1
such violations. Please give
the names of the banks
with details of violations
Icommitted by them.
3. 'Advisory Note' issued to ICICI An Advisory Letter had been I
Bank for account opened by issued to the bank in December, I
some fraudsters at its Patna 2007 for the bank's Patna branch
Branch Information sought having failed to (a) comply with the
customer I
G
Iabout
i
"exact nature of RBI guiderines
irregularities committed by the identificatkln,
on
opening/operating
Ibank under "FEMA customer accounts, (b) the bank
not having followed the normal
banker's prudence while opening
an account in question.
I
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 515
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

A
Also gve list of ctrer AA - reg;ircJs. the list~
ill eg;il ities comrritted by su~rvisory action taken by LS,
IBL and other details of it may be stated !rat tre query
offences comrritted by IBL is too genera and nct specific.
thro~h various trancres Further, we may state that
B
in India and abroad aong Su~rviSJry actions taken
with actiai t<i<en by tre were based on the scrutiny
Regulator irducing tre conducted under Section 35 d
nanes and desigiatims the Banking Regulation (BR)
of his officials branch fa.ct The information in the
nane, type d dfence scrutiny rei;ort is held in c
comritted etc. Tre exact fidu:;iary C<:llactty and the
naturB of dfences disclost.re of vlhi ch can affect
comrritted by Petra the ecomnic interest of the
Branch of the bark and comtry aid also affect the
other branches d tre commercial confidence of the
baik aid names of tis baik And such informatim is D
officias invdved, type of also exernµ from disdosure
offence oommitted by under Section 8(1)(a)(d) & (e)
them and plllishment d the RTI Act (extracts
a\Aflrded by concerned erdosed). We, therefore, a-e
autmrity, rarnes and urable to accede to )Qur
E
desigration of tre request
designated authomy, wm
investigated tre abcNe
case and his findings and
pmishrnent awa-ded"
F
4. Exact na!t.re of In this regcrd, self explicit print
irregularities comnitted by out taken from the website d
!CIC! Baik in Haig Kong Securities and Futt.res
Comnission, Hong Kong is
erdosed.
G
5. ICICI Bark's MoSCON I/Ve do not rave the
Branch involved in money infamation.
lamdering act

H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 14 S.C.R.

A
---·
6. lrrµisition of fine 01 ICICI We cb mt rave any inforrraion to
Bank under Section 13 of Ire furnish in this regard.
Rv1.A for loss d dorurents i1
floods.
B ----
7. Copy of the Warning or Ps regards yrur req..iest fcr
'Advisory N'.lie' issua:I twice oopes/detals of a:Jviscry letters to
issued to the bark in tre last ICICI Bank, v-.e rray state that Sld1
i:IAo yeas and reasors irtarration is exanrx frcrn
reoorda:I trerein. disdoSU"e urder &rtion 8(1 Xa)(d)
ard (e) d the Rrl Pd. The scrutiny
c Name and desigiatim of tre of records d the ICICI Bank is
~ authority wto CXl1du:ta:I this oorducted by DLr Departrrert of
1 meek ard his dedsim to Barking Sl.4Jen.1sim (DBS). n-e
issue an a:Jvisory note only Ctief <?eneral Mnagar-in cha-ge of
instea:J of penaties to te the CBS, Certre Office Reserve
D
irrpo9ad under tre Pd. Bark d India is Shri s.
Kan.ppasarcy.

5. In this matter, it has been alleged by the petitioner RBI
E that the respondent is aggrieved on account of his application
form for three-in-one account with the Bank and ICICI Securities
Limited (ISEC) lost in the floods in July, 2005 and because of
non-submission of required documents, the Trading account
with ISEC was suspended, for which respondent approached
F the District ConsLJmer Forum, which rejected the respondent's
allegations of tempering of records and dismissed the
complaint of the respondent. His appeal was also dismissed
by the State Commission. Respondent then moved an
application under the Act of 2005 pertaining to the suspension.
G of operation of his said trading account. As the consumer
complaint as well as the abovementioned application did ·not
yield any result for the respondent, he made an application
under the Act before the CPIO, SEBI, appeal to which went up

H
. . ·~·~.

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 517
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

to the CIC, the Division Bench of which disposed of his appeal A
upholding the decision of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority
of SEBI. Thereafter, in August 2009, respondent once again
_made the_ present application underthe Act seeking aforesaid
information. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate
_authority, respondent moved second appeal before the CIC, B
who by the impugned order directed the CPIO of RBI to furnish
information pertaining to Advisory Notes as requested by the
respondent within 15 working days. Hence, RBI approached
Bombay High Court by way of writ petition.
6. In Transfer Case No. 93 of 2015, the Respondent C
sought following information from the CPIO of National Bank
for Agriculture and Rural Development under the Act of 2005,
reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-_

D
SI. Information Sought Reply
No.

- 1. Copies of inspection reports FlJ'f1ishing d information is
· of Apex Co-operative Banks exempt under Section 8(1 )(a) of
of various States/Mumbai the ITTIM. E
DCCB from 2005 till date

2. Copies of all Different Departments in
correspondenres with NABARD deal with various
Mararashtra State issues related to MSCB. The
Govt./RBVany other agency query is general in nature. F
of State/Central Co-operative Applicant may pease be
Bank from January, 2010 till specific in queiy/inforrnation
date. sought

3. Provide confirmed' draft FLrnishing d information is
minutes of meetings d exempt under Sec. 8(1 )(d) of
Governing Board/Board of theITTIM. G
Directors/Commtttee of
Directors of NABARD from
April, 2007 till date

H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 14 S.C.R.

A -4. R'Ovide irtorrnaial on Carpliance a\0ilable on tte
corrpliance of Sedion 4 of V1ebsite of f\11\BL\RD i.e.
Rn /ld, aJ05 by NllEAAD www.naterd.org

B 1-5-.--+-lnfo_11_1a-tion- _rra_y_bepro.tlde:i -
on am

7. The First Appellate Authority concurred with the CPIO
and held that inspection report cannot be supplied in terms of
C Section 8(1 )(a) of the RTI Act. The Respondent filed Second
Appeal before the Central Information Commission, which was
allowed. The RBI filed writ petition before the High Court
challenging the order of the CIC dated 14.11.2011 on identical
issue and the High Court stayed the operation of the order of
D theCIC.
8. In Transfer Case No. 94 of 2015, the Respondent
sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the
Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:
E No.
si:-- -- . Information Sought- - 1--·. - Reply - .
,
:
' 1. As mentioned at 2(a) what is 'I Pursuant to the then Finance
RBI doing about uploading Minister's Budget Speech made
the entire list of Bank in Parliament on 28 1h February,
. defaulters on the bank's 1994, in order to alert the banks
website? When will it be and Fis and put them on guard
F done? Why is It not done? against the defaulters to other
lending institutions. RBI has put
in place scheme to coUect
details about borrowers of banks
and Fis with outstanding
aggregating Rs. 1 crore and
above which are classified as
G 'Doubtful' or 'Loss or where suits
are filed, as on 31" March and
, 30 1h September each year. In
· February 1999, Reserve Bank of
1
India had also introduced a
scheme for collection and
dissemination of information on
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 519
[M. Y. EOBAL, J.]

cases of willful default of barO\Mlrs A
with outstaiding balanoe of Rs. 25
lakh and abCNe. M. p-esent, RBI
disseminates list ri above sad non
suit filed 'doul:tful' and 1oss'
borrov..ed accounts ri Rs.1 crore
and above on haW-ymrly oosis (i.e. B
as on March 31 ard September 30)
to ranks ard Fis. for their
oonf1dential use. The list ri non-
suit filed aooounts · of VlilWul
defaulters ri Rs. 25 lakh and abCNe
is also dlsseminated on quarterly C
basis to banks ard Fis for their
confidential use. Section 45 E of
the Reseive Bank of India Act 1934
prohibits the Reseive Bank from
disclosing 'creel! infarnation'
exoep: in the manner prolided
therein. D
(i) 1-bwever, Banks and Fis
were advised on O::t6ber 1, 2002 to
. furrish information in respect of
suit-filed acCounts betv..een Rs. 1
lakh and Rs. 1 crcre from the
period erded March, 2002 in a E
phased manner to CIBIL only.
CIBIL is plocing the list of
defaulters (suit filed acoounts) of
.
Rs. 1 crore and abCNe and list of
willful defaulters (suit filed
accounts) of Rs. 25 lakh and abo>e F
as on March 31, 2003 ard onwards
on its v..ebslte (www.dtil.com)

9. The Central Information Commission heard the parties
through video conferencing. The CIC directed the CPIO of the G
petitioner to provide information as per the records to the
Respondent in relation to query Nos. 2(b) and 2(c) before
10.12.2011. The Commission has also directed the Governor
RBI to display this information on its website before 31.12.2011,
H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A in fulfillment of its obligations under Section 4( 1)(b) (xvii) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 and to update it each year.
_10. In Tran sfer Case No.95 of 2015, following information
.was sought and reply to it is tabulated hereunder:
~- ___ __'._.. - .. -
SI. lnforrriation Sought Reply
B No.
1. Complete and detailed information As the vidations ci wlich the
including related banks were issued Show
documents/oorreiponderre/file Cause Notices and
nd:ing etc of RBI on imposing fines subseQ.Jently mposed
c on some ranks for violating rues like peralties and based on the
also referred in enclosed news findings ci the Amual
dpping Financial Inspection (AFI) of
the banks, and the
2. Complete list cf ranks which v..ere information is received by us
issued show cause notices before in a fidi£iary capacity, the
fine was imposed as also referred in disclosure cf S1£h
D enclosed news clipping mertioning information IMJUld
also default fer which sha.v cause prejudicialy ctfect the
nd:ioe was issued to each of such economic interests ci the
banks State and ham the bank's
competttive position. The
SCNs/fincl ng;/reports/
E associated
oorrespondences/CJ"ders are
the refere exempt frcrr
disdOSlJ"e i1 terms of thl
prCNisions of Section 8(1 )(a
(d) and .(e) a the Rrl M.
F 2005.
2. Ccrnplete list cf ranks which v..ere -do-
issued show cause notices before
fine was imposed as also referred in
enclosed news dippings mertioning
also default fer which sha.v cause
nctioe was issued to each of such
G banks.
3. List of banks out of those in query (2) Do
above where fine was not imposed
gMng detcils like if their reply was
satisfactory etc.
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 521
.. [M. Y. EOBAL: J.)

4. List of tanks wlich wrre ultimtely The nemes of the 19 tanks A
fourd guity and fines mentiaiirg also ard ootaiis of penalty
arrrunt d fine on ea:h d the tank ard imposed on them are
criterion to decide fine on ea:h of the furnished in Amex 1.
baik . Regarding the crita"ion for
deciding the fine, the
paialties have been B
imposed on these banks for
contra1enti01 of various
directions aid instructions
such as failure to carry m.t
prq:ier due diligence on
user ar;propiateness ::nd
suitroility of products,
c
seUing renvative podu::ts
to users not having prqier
risk Management policies,
. nci ver\fyi rg the unoortying
/aqequa:y d urdertying and
e~gble limits under past· .D
pafamance route, issued
by RBI in respect d
derivative traisactions.
5. . Is fine itr4J00ed /action taken 01 sane N;J other b::nk was
other banks aso ether than as paialized ether thai tJ-ose E
mentioned in enclosed nevis dippng mentioned in the. Annex, in
.
the caitert d press release
f'b.~10-2011/1555 of AJ:til
26,2011
.

6.. If yes please provioo details f'bt Appicrole, in vieN d .
the infcrrnation prcwided in F
qJeryNo.5
7. Any other inforrnatim Tte query is not si;edfic.

8. Fl.le notirgs m rro1ernert .d tris Rn Copy d the note is
petftion and on every aspect d this Rfl .erdosed.
Petitim G
.

11. In the Second Appeal,· the CIC heard the· respondent
via telephone and the petitioner through video conferencing.
As directed by CIC,· the petitioner filed written submission. The .
H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A CIC directed the CPIO of the Petitioner to provide complete
information in relation to queries 1 2 and 3 of the original
application of the Respondent before 15.12.2011.
12. In Transfer Case No. 96 of 2015, the Respondent
sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the
B Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-

1. Before the Orissa High The Information sought by
c Court RBI has filed an
affidavit stating that the
you is exempted under
Section 8(1)(a) & (e) of RTI
total ·mark to market Act, which state as under;
losses on account of
currency derivatives is to 8(1) notwithstanding anything
the tune of more than Rs. contained in this Act, there
32,000 crores Please give shall be no obligation to give
bank wise breakup of the any citizen
D M TM Losses (a} Information disclosure
of which would prejudicially
affect the sovereignty and
integrity of India the
security strategic scientific
or economic interests of the
state, relation with foreign
State or lead to incitement
E of an offence.
(e} Info rm a tio n a va ila b le to
a person in his fiduciary
relationship unless the
competent authority is
satisfied that larger pub lie
interest warrants the
disclosure of such
information.

2. What is the latest figure Please refer to our response
available with RBI of the to 1 above.
amount of losses suffered
by Indian Business
houses? Please furnish
G the latest fipu res bank
wise and custom er wise.

H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 523
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

3.
-~--

Whether the issue of de-ivatwe We have no information in this A
losses to Indian exporters was matter.
discussed in any of the
meetings of Govemor/Dep.ity
Governor or senior official of
the Reserve Bank of India? If
so please furnish the minutes B
of the meeting v.here the said
issue was discussed .
4. Any other Action Taken We have no information in this
Reports by RBI in this regard. matter.

13. The CIC allowed the second appeal and directed C
the CPIO FED of the Petitioner to provide complete information
in queries 1, 2, 9 and 1O of the original application of the
Respondent before 05.01.2012. The CPIO, FED complied with
the order of the CIC in so far queries 2, 9 and 10 are concerned.
The RBI filed writ petition for quashing the order of CIC so far D
as it directs to provide complete information as p~r record on
queryNo.1.
14. In Transfer Case No. 97 of 2015, the Respondent
sought following information from the CPIO of National Bank E
for Agriculture and Rural Development under the Act of 2005,
reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
SI. -Information Sought Reply
No.

1. The report made by NABARD Please refer to your F
regarding 86 N.P.A Accounts for Rs. application dated 19
3806.95 crore of Maharashtra State April. 2011 seeking
Co-operative Bank Ltd. (~ any information under the
information of my appllcation is not RTI Act, 2005 which was
available in your Office/Department/ received by us on 061h
Dwision/Branch, transfer this May, 2011. In this
application to the concerned connection, we advise G
Office/Department/ Division/Branch that the questions put
and convey me accordingly as per the forth by you relate to the
provision of Section 6 (3) of Right to observations made in
Information Act. 2005. the Inspection Report of
NABARD pertaining to
H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A
MSCB which are
confidential in nature.
Since furnishing the
information would
impede the process of
investigation or
B apprehension or
prosecution of
offenders, disclosure of
the same is exempted
under Section 8(1 )(h)
of the Act.
c
15. In Transfer Case No. 98 of 2015, the Respondent
sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the
Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
D
SI. Information Sought Reply
No.
1. What contraventions and violations were The bark was penaized
made by SCB in respect ci RBI along with 18 other bffiks
E instructions on derivatives for which RBI fa" contravention of
has imposed penalty of INR 10 lal41s on various instructions
SCB in exercise ci its powers vested issued tty the Reserve
-under Section 47(1)(b) of Banking Bank of India in respect
Regulation Act, 1949 and as stated in of derivati..es, such as,
the RBI press rel03se dated Apri 26, faihre ·to cany out due
2011 issued by Departmert ci diUgence in rega-d to
F Communications RBI suitabUtty of products,
selting derivative
products to users not
having risk management
poficies and not verifying
the undertying/adequacy
of undertying ffid eligible
G limtts under past
performance route. The
information is also
availal:Je ·an oir website
under press ref03ses.

H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 525
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

2. Aease pl'Olide us the cqiies/retails d all O:lrrplants are received
A
the rorrplairts tied with RBI ~ainst SCB, by RlseJVe Bank of India
aco.Eing SCB of ms-selling rerivaive an:J as they cx:nstitute the
prcducts, !ah.re to call)' out due dligerre in third party infonratim, the
regard to suitabHily d produ:ts,mt verifyirg infmration requested by
the un:Jerlying'a:leq.iacy of unrerlying an:J you cannd be disclosed in
eligible Ii nits under i:ast i:ertcrrrarre an:J terrrs d Soction 8(1 )(d) of B
varibus other ron-carpliance d RBI the ITTI Pd., 2005.
instru:tion on ct!rivaives.

Also, please provide the abO\e inforrratim
in the follo\l\ing fonret

. Dae d the corrpaint c
Naro of the carplant
·Suqect matter d the corrpaint

Brief clascrifiion of the facts an:J
aca.sations rna:le by the corrplaint. D
/lJlj other infcrrration availa!je \l\ith RBI
with respect to violaion/cortraventions by
SCB of RBI instructions m derivatives.
. 3. Aease provide us the copies of all the .The aclim has been taken
written replies/correspon:Jences rna:le by against the bark based m E
SCB \l\ith RBI and the recordings of all the the findings of the Amual
ora subnissions rna:le by SCB to defen:J Rnanda lnsi:ection ~I)
an:J explan the violaions/oortra..entims d the bank Wiich is
rraoobySCB con:Jucted under the
provisions of Se::.35 of tre
BRAct, 1949. The fin:Jirgs
d the inspedim are F
corfdertial in naure
I intended specifically for the
sui:ervised ertities an:J fer
corrective aclim by them
The infonretion is received
by us in fiduciary cai:adly G
disdOSLre of Wiich rray
prejuddaly a'fect the
ecmonic. interest of tre
stat(!.

H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 14S.C.R.

-------- --·-
A As such the information
camot be disclosed in
terms d Section 8(1)
(a) and (e) of the RTI
Act, 2005

4. Please provide us the details/copies d the
B findings recordings, enquiry reports,
directive orders file llotings and/or any
information on the investigations conducted
by RBI against SCB in respect d non-
compliance by SCB thereby establishing
violations 11f SCBV in respect of non
compliances d RBI instructions on
c derivatives.
Please also provide the above information
in the followng format. ·

Brief violations/contraventions made by
SCB

D . In brief SCB replies/defense/explanation
against each violations/contraventions made
by it under the show cause notice.

. RBI investigations/notes/on the SCB

Replies/defense/explanations for each of
E the violation/contravention made by SCB.

RBI remarks/findings wth regard to the
violations/contraventions made by SCB.

16. In Transfer Case No. 99 of 2015, the Respondent
sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the
F Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
~
-
SI. Information Sought Reply
No.

1. That, what action has the 1. Enquiry was carried
department taken against out against ~cams/financial
G scams/financial irregularities of irregularities of Unfted
United MercaAtile Cooperative Mercantile Cooperative
Bank Ltd as mentioned in the Bank Ltd. as mentioned in
enclosed published news. Provids the enclosed pubflshed
day to day progress report of the nevvs.
action taken.
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 527
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

,---~.---~~~~~~~~~~~-,-,--,-,--~c--~~~ A
2. f\bte/explanation has
· been called for from the
bank vide wr letter dated
Juy, 2011 regarding a"'
errors mentioned in
enqJiry report.
B
3. The cther information
asked here is based on
the condusions ri
Inspection Report. We
woud . like to state that
condusions found dU"ing C
inspections are
confidential and the
reports are finalized on the
basis of information
received from banks. We
received the information D
from banks in a confident
capacity. Moreo.ier,
disdosure ri such
information may cause
damage to the banking
system and financial
interests· of the state; E
Disclosure of ruch type of
information is · exempted
under Section 8(1 )(a) and
(e) of RTI Act, 2005.

2. That permission for qJering hem many Unttoo Mercantile
. extension COl.flters was obtained by Coq:ierative Bank Ltd. F
United Mercaitile O>operative B<11k Ltd was permitted to open 5,
from RBI. Provide details of expendture extension counters.
incurred· for constructir~i the extension
col.fliers. Had the. bank follov.ed tender The information regarding
system for these constru::tions. if yes, expendtt.ure incurred on
p!Thlide details ri corcema:l tenders: . constructicn of these G
extension counters and
tenders are not available
with Reserve Bank ci
India.

H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R.

A 17. In Transfer Case No. 100 of2015, the Respondent
sought following information from the CPIO of RBI under the
Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
-
SI. Information Sought
.
Reply
--
No.

B 1. Under which Grade The George Tcmn The classification of
Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chennai, has banks into various grades
been categorised as on 31.12.2006? are done on the basis of
inspection findings which
is based on information/
documents obtained in a
fiduciary capactty and
cannot be disclosed to
c outsiders. It is also
exempted under Section
8(1 )(e) of right to
lnfonnation Act, 2005.

18. The Appellate Authority observed thatthe CPIO, UBD
D has replied that the classification of banks into various grades
is done on the basis of findings recorded in inspection which
are based on information/documents obtained in a fiduciary
capacity and cannot" be disclosed to outsiders. The CPIO,
UBD has stat~d that the same is exempted under Section
E 8( 1)( e) of RTI Act. Apart from the fact that information sought
by the appellant is sensitive and canriot be disclosed, it could
also harm the competitive position of the co-operative bank.
Therefore, exemption from disclosure of the Information is
available under Section 8( 1)( d) of the RTI Act.
F
19. In Transfer Case No. 101. of 2015, with regard to
Deendayal Nagri Shakari Bank Ltd, District Beed, the
Respondent sought following information from the CPIO of RBI
under the Act of 2005, reply to which is tabulated hereunder:-
._ - "'- --
SI. i lnfonnation Sought Reply
G No. .
1. Copies of complaints received by RBI Disclosure of information
against ilegal working of the said regarding complaints
bank, including violations of the received from third parties
Standing Orders of RBI as well as the would harm the
provisions under Section 295 of the competitive position of a
CompaniesAct, 1956. third party.
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 529
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

A
Further such infcirmation is
maintained in a fiduciary
capacity and is exempted
from disclosure under
Sections .8(1 )(d) and (e) of
the RTI Act. B
2. Action initiated by RBI (a) A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh
against the· said bank, was imposed on
including all Deendayal Nagri Sahakari
correspondence between Bank Ltd. for violation of
RBI and the said bank directives on loans to
officials. directors/their C
relatives/concerns in which
they· are interested. The
bank paid the penalty on
08.10.2010.
(b) As· regards
correspondence between D
RBI and the, co-operative
bank, it is advised that
such information is
maintained by RBI in
fiduciary capacity and
hence cannot be given to E
outsiders. Moreover
disclosure of such
information may harm the
interest of the bank and
banking system. Such
information is exempt from
disclosure under Section F
8(1)(a) and (e) of the RTI
Act.

3. Finding of the enq~iry Such information is
made by RBI, actions maintained by the bank in a
proposed and taken fiduciary capacity and is
against the bank and its obtained by RBI during the G
officials-0fficial notings, course of inspection of the
decisions, and final orders bank and hence cannot be
passed and issued. given to outsiders.

H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 148.C.R.

,~-~----------~--~ -- ----:--
A The disclosure of such
information would harm
the competitive pos~ion
of a third party. Such
information is, therefore,
exempted from
B disclosure under
Section 8(1)(d) and (e)
of the RTI Act.

As regards action taken
against the bank, are
reply at S. No.2 (a)
c above.
4. Confidential letters received by Se~ reply at S. N0.2 (a)
RBI from the Executive Director above.
of Vaishnavi Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd.
complaining about the illegal
working and pressure policies of
D the bank and its chairman for
misusing the authority of digital
signature for sanction of the
backdated resignations of the
chairman of the baRk and few
other directors of the companies
E details of action taken by RBI on
that.

20. The First Appellate Authority observed that the CPIO
· had furnished the information available on queries 2 arid 4.
F Further information sought in queries 1 and 3 was exempted
under Section 8(1 )(a)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act.
21. Various transfer petitions were, therefore, filed
seeking transfer of the writ petitions pending before different
High Courts. On 30.5.2015, while allowing the transfer petitions
G filed by Reserve Bank of India seeking transfer of various writ
petitions filed by it in the High Courts of Delhi and Bombay,
this Court passed the following orders:
"Notice is served upon the substantial number of
respondents. Learned counsel forthe respondents have
H
RESERVE. BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 531
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

no objection if Writ Petition Nos. 8400 of 2011, 8605 of A
2011, 8693 of 2011, 8583 of 2011, 32 of 2012, 685 of
2012, 263 of 2012 and 1976 of 2012 pending in the High
·Court of Delhi at New Delhi and Writ Petition (L) Nos.
2556 of 2011, 2798 of 2011 and 4897 of 201·1 pending
in the High Court of Bombay are transferred to this Court B
and be heard together. In the meanwhile, the steps may
be taken to serve upon the unserved respondents.
Accordingly, the transfer petitions are allowed and the
above mentioned writ petitions are withdrawn to this
Court. The High Court of Delhi and the High Court of C
Bombay are directed to remit the entire record of the
said writ petitions to this Court within four weeks."
22. Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner-Reserve Bank of India, assailed 0
the impugned orders passed by the Central Information
Commissioner as illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned
Counsel referred various provisions of The Reserve Bank of
India Act, 1934; The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 arid The
.Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and E
made the following subrl)issions:-
1) The Reserve Bank of India being the statutory authority
has been constituted under the Reserve Bank of India
Act, 1934 for the purpose of regulating and controlling
the money supply in the country. It also acts as statutory F
banker with the Govern·ment of India and State
Governments and manages their public debts. In
addition, it regulates and supervises Commercial Banks
and Cooperative Banks in the country. The RBI exercises
control over the volume of credit, the rate of interest G
chargeable on loan and advances and deposits in order
to ensure the economic stability. The RBI is also vested
with the powers to determine "Banking Policy" in the
interest of banking system, monetary stability and sound
economic growth. H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.~.

A The RBI in exercise of powers of powers conferred under
Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 conducts
inspection of the banks in the country.
II) The RBI in its capacity as the regulator and supervisor
of the banking system of the country access to various
B information collected and kept by the banks. The
inspecting team and the officers carry out inspections of
different banks and much of the information accessed
by the inspecting officers of RBI would be confidential.
Referring Section :;18 of the Banking Regulation Act, it
c was submitted that the RBI in the public interest may
publish the information obtained by it, in a consolidated
form but not otherwise.
Ill) The role of RBI is to safeguard the economic and
financial stability of the country and it has large contingent
D
of expert advisors relating to matters deciding the
economy of the entire country and nobody can doubt the
bona fide of the bank. In this connection, learned counsel
referred the decision ofthis Court in the case of Peerless
General Finance and Investment Co. Limited and
E
Another Vs. Reserve Bank of India, 1992 Vol. 2 SCC
343. .
IV) Referring the decision in the case of B.
Suryanarayana Vs. N. 1453 The Kol/uru Parvathi
F Co-Op. Bank Ltd., 1986AIR (AP) 244, learned counsel
submitted that the Court will be highly chary to enter into
and interfere with the decision of Reserve Bank of India.
Learned Counsel also referred to the decision in the case
of Peerless General Finance and Investment Co.
G Limited and Another Vs. Reserve Bank of India, 1992
Vol. 2 sec 343 and contended that Courts are not to
interfere with the economic policy which is a function of
the experts.

H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 533
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

V) That the RBI is vested with the responsibility of A
regulation and supervision of the banking system. As
part of its supervisory role, RBI supervises and monitors
the bank~ under its jurisdiction through on-site inspection
conducted on annual basis under the statutory powers
derived by it under section 35 of the Banking Regulation B
Act 1949, off-site returns on key financial parameters and
engaging banks in dialogue through periodical meetings.
RBI may take supervisory actions where warranted for
violations of its guidelines/directives. The supervisory
actions would depend on the seriousness of the offence, c
systemic implications and may range from imposition of
penalty, to issue of strictures or letters of warning. While
RBI recognizes and promotes enhanced transparency
in banks disclosures to the public, as transparency
strengthens market discipline, a bank may not be able D
to disclose all data that may be relevant to assess its
risk profile, due. to the inherent need to preserve
confidentially in relation to its customers. In this light,
while mandatory disclosures include certain prudential
parameters such as capital adequacy, level of Non E
Performing Assets etc., the supervisors themselves may
not disclose all or some information obtained on-site or
off-site. In some countries, wherever there are supervisory
concerns, "prompt corrective action" programmes are
normally put in place, which may or may not be publicly F
disclosed. Circumspection in disclosures. by the
supervisors arises from the potential market reaction that
such disclosure might trigger, which may not be
desirable. Thus, in any policy of transparency, there is a
need to build processes which ensure that the benefits G
of supervisory disclosure are appropriately weighed
against the risk to stakeholders, such as depositors.
VI) As per the RBI policy, the reports of the annual financial
inspection, scrutiny of all banks/ financial ~nstitutions are
H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A confidential document cannot be disclosed. As a matter
of fact, the annual financial inspection/ scrutiny report
reflect the supervisor's critical assessment of banks and
financial institutions and their functions. Disclosure of
these scrutiny and information would create
B misunderstanding/ misinterpretation in the minds of the
public. That apart, this may prove significantly counter
productive. Learned counsel submitted that the
disclosure of information sought for by the applicant would
not serve the public interest as it will give adverse impact
c in public confidence on the bank. This has serious
implication for financial stability which rests on public
confidence. This will also adversely affect the economic
interest of the State and would not serve the larger public
interest.
D 23. The specific stand of petitioner Reserve Bank of India
is that the information sought for is exempted under Section
8(1 )(a), (d) and (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. As
the regulator and supervisor of the banking system, the RBI
has discretion in the disclosure of such information in public
E interest.
24. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel, referred
various decisions to the High Court and submitted that the
disclosure of information would prejudicially affect the
F economic interest of the State. Further, ifthe information sought
for is sensitive from the point of adverse market reaction
leading to systematic crisis for financial stability.
25. Learned senior counsel put heavy reliance on the
Full Bench decision of the Central Information Commissioner
G and submitted that while passing the impugned order, the
Central Information Commissioner completely overlooked the
Full Bench decision and ignored the same. According to the
learned counsel, the Bench, which passed the impugned order,
is bound to follow the Full Bench decision. The Commission
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 535
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

also erred in holding that the Full Bench decision is per incuriam A
as the Full Bench has not considered the statl:ltory provisions
of Section 8 (2) of the Rightto Information Act, 2005.
26. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the
Commission erred in holding that even if the information sought
for is exempted under Section 8(1) (a), (d) or (e) of the Right B
to Information Act, Section 8(2) of the RTI Act would mandate
· the disclosure of the information.
27. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the
basic question of law is whether the Right to Information Act, c
2005 overrides various provisions of special statuteswhich
confer confidentiality in the information obtained by the RBI.; If
the Respondents are right in their contention, these statutory
provisions of confidentiality in the Banking Regulation Act,
1949, the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the Credit 0
Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 would be
repealed or overruled by the Right to Information Act, 2005.
28. Under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Reserve
Bank of India has a right to obtain information from the banks
under Section 27. These information. can only be in its E
discretion published in such consolidated form as RBI deems
fit. Likewise under Section 34A production of documents of
confidential nature cannot be compelled. Under sub-section
(5) of Section 35, the Reserve Bank of India may carry out
inspection of any bank but its report can only be disclosed if F
the Central Government orders the publishing of the report of
the Reserve Bank of India when it appears necessary.
29. Under Section 45E of the Reserve Bank of India Act,
1934, disclosure of any information relating to credit
information submitted by banking company is confidential and G
under Section 45E(3) notwithstanding anything contained in
any law no court, tribunal or authority can compel the Reserve
Bank of India to give information relating to credit information
etc.·
H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R.

A 30. Under Section 17(4) of the Credit Information
Companies (Re9ulation)Act, 2005, credit information received
by the credit information company cannot be disclosed to any
person. Under Section 20, the credit information company
has to adopt privacy principles and under Section 22 there
B cannot be unauthorized access to credit information.
31. It was further contended that the Credit Information
Companies Act, 2005 was brought into force after the Right to
Information act, 2005 w.e.f. 14.12.2006. It is significant to note
that Section 28 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 was amended
C by the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005.
This is a clear indication that the Right to Information Act, 2005
cannot override credit information sought by any person in
contradiction to the statutory provisions for confidentiality.
32. This is in addition to other statutory provisions of
0
privacy in Section 44 of State Bank of India Act, 1955, Section
52, State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks)Act, 1959, Section
13 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of
Undertakings)Act, 1970.
E 33. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a general
provision which cannot override specific provisions relating to
confidentiality in earlier legislation in accordance with the
principle that where there are general words in a later statute
it cannot be held that the earlier statutes are repealed altered
F or discarded.
34. Learned counsel submitted that Section 22 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot have the effect of nullifying
and repealing earlier statutes in relation to confidentiality. This
has been well settled by this Court in
G
a) Raghunath vs. state of Karnataka 1992(1) SCC
335 at p.348 pages 112 and 114
b) /CIC/ Bank vs. SIDCO Leather etc., 2006(10) SCC
452 at p. 466, paras 36 & 37
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 537
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

c) Central Bank vs. Kerala, 2009 (4)SCC 94 atp. 132- A
133 para 104
d) AG Varadharajalu vs. Tamil Nadu, 1998 (4) SCC
231 at p. 236 para 16.
Hence, the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot override B
the provisions for confidentiality conferred on the RBI by the
earlier statutes referred to above.
35. The Preamble of the RTI Act, 2005 itself recognizes
the fact that since the revealing of certain information is likely
to conflict with other public interests like "the preservation of C
confidentiality of sensitive information", there is a need to
harmonise these conflicting interests. It is submitted that
certain exemptions were carved out in the RTI Act to harmonise
these conflicting interests. This Court in Central Board of
Secondary Education and Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay D
and Ors, (2011)8 SCC 497, has observed as under:-
"When trying to ensure that the right to information does
not conflict with several other public interests (which
includes efficient operations of the Governments,
preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, E
optimum use of limited fiscal resources, etc.), it is difficult ·
to visualise and enumerate all types of information which
require to be exempted from disclosure in public interest.
The legislature has however made an attempt to do so.
The enumeration of exemptions is more exhaustive than · F
the enumeration of exemptions attempted in the earlier
. Act, that is, Section 8 of the Freedom to Information Act,
2002. The courts and Information Commissions
enforcing the provisions of the RTI Act have to adopt a
purposive construction, involving a reasonable and G
balanced approach which harmonises the two objects
of the Act, while interpreting Section 8 and the other
provisions of the Act."

H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R.

A· 36. Apart from the legal position that the Right to
Information Act, 2005 does not override statutory provisions
of confidentiality in other Act, it is submitted that in any case
Section 8(1 )(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 states
that there is no obligation to give any information which pre-
B judiciously affects the economic interests of the States.
Disclosure of such vital information relating to banking would
pre-judiciously affect the economic interests of the State. This
was clearly stated by the Full Bench of the Central Information
Commission by its Order in the case of Ravin Ranchchodlal
c Patel (supra). Despite this emphatic ruling individual
Commissioners of the Information have disregarded it by
holding that the decision of the Full Bench was per incurium
and directed disclosure of information.
37. Other exceptions in Section 8, viz8(1)(a)(d), 8(1)(e)
D would also apply to disclosure by the RBI and banks. In sum,
learned senior counsel submitted that the RBI cannot be
directed to disclose information relating to banking under the
Right to Information Act, 2005.
E 38. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents in Transfer Case Nos.94 & 95 of 2015,
began his arguments by referring the Preamble of the
Constitution and submitted that through the Constitution it is
the people who have created legislatures, executives and the
F judiciary to exercise such duties and functions as laid down in
the constitution itself.
39. The right to information regarding the functioning of
public institutions is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article
19 of the Constitution of India. This Hon'ble Court has declared
G in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the
functioning of a healthy and well informed democracy is
transparency. Mr. Bhushan referred Constitution Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Raj
Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865, and submitted that it is a
H
RESERVE BANK OF !NOIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 539
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

Government's responsibility like ours, where all the. agents of A
the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be
but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to
know every public act, everything that is done in a public way,
by their functionaries. The right to know, which is derived from
the concept offreedom of speech, though not absolute, is a B
factor which Should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed
for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion
on public security. To cover with veil of secr.ecy, the common
routine business is not in the interest of public.
40. In the case of S.P. Gupta v. President oflndia and C
Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149, a seven Judge Bench of this Court
made the following observations regarding the right to
information:-
"There is also in every democracy a certain amount of 0
public suspicion and distrust of Government, varying of
course from time to time according to its performance,
which prompts people to insist upon maximum exposure
of its functioning. It is axiomatic that every action of the
.Government must be actuated by public interest but even E
so we find cases, though not many, where Governmental
action is taken not for public good but for personal gain
or other extraneous considerations. Sometimes
Governmental action is influenced by political and other
motivations and pressures and at times, there are atso F
instances of misuse or abuse of authority on the part of
the executive. Now, if secrecy were to be observed in
the functioning of Government and the processes of
Government were to be kept hidden from public scrutiny,
it would tend to promote and encourage oppression,
corruption and misuse or abuse of authority, for it would G
all be shrouded in the veil of secrecy without any public
·accountability. But if there is an open Government with
means of information available to the public, there would
be greater exposure of the functioning of Government
H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A and it would help to assure the people a better and more
efficient administration. There can be little doubt that
exposure to public gaze and scrutiny is one of the surest
means of achieving a clean and healthy administration.
It has been truly said that an open Government is clean
B Government and a powerful safeguard against political
and administrative aberration and inefficiency."
41. In the case of the Union of/ndia vs. Association
for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112, while declaring
that it is part of the fundamental right of citizens under.Article
C 19(1 )(a) to know the assets and liabilities of candidates
contesting election to the Parliament or the State Legislatures,
a three Judge Bench of this Court held unequivocally that:-
'The right to get information in a democracy is recognized all
throughout and is a natural right flowing from the concept of
D democracy (Para 56)." Thereafter, legislation was passed
amending the Representation of People Act, 1951 that
candidates need not provide such information. This Court in
the case of PUCL vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399,
struck down that legislation by stating: "It should be properly
E understood that the fundamental rights enshrined in the
Constitution such as, right to equality and freedoms have no
fixed contents. From time to time, this Court has filled in the
skeleton with soul and blood and made it vibrant. Since the
last more than 50 years, this Court has interpreted Articles 14,
F 19 and 21 and given meaning and colour so that the nation
can have a truly republic democratic society."
42. The RTI Act, 2005, as noted in its very preamble,
does not create any new right but only provides machinery to
G effectuate the fundamental right to information. The institution
of the CIC and the SI Cs are part of that· machinery. The
preamble also inter-alia states" ... democracy requires an
informed citizenry and transparency of information which are
vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to

H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 541
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to A
the governed."
43. The submission of the RBI that exceptions be carved
out of the RTI Act regime in order to accommodate provisions .
of RBI Act and Banking Regulation Act is clearly misconceived.
RTI Act, 2005 contains a clear provision (Section 22) by virtue B
of which it overrides all other Acts including Official Secrets
Act. Thus, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
in ariy other law like RBI Act or Banking Regulation Act, the
RTI Act, 2005 shall prevail insofar as transparency and access
to information is concerned. Moreover, the RTIAct2005, being C
a later law, specifically brought in to usher transparency and to
transform the way official business is conducted, would have
to override.all earlier practices and laws in order to achieve its
objective. The only exceptions to access to informaiion are
contained in RTI Act itself in Section 8. D
44. In T.C.No.94 of 2015, the RTI applicant Mr. P.P.
Kapoor had asked about the details of the loans taken by the
industrialists that have not been repaid, and he had asked about
the names of the top defaulters who have not repaid their l9ans E
to public sector banks. The RBI resisted the disclosure of the
information claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (a) and
8(1 )(e) of the RTIAct on the ground that disclosure would affect
the economic interest of .the country, and that the information
has been received by the RBI from the banks in fiduciary F
capacity. The CIC found these arguments made by RBI to be
totally misconceived in facts and in law, and held that the
disclosure would be in public interest.
45. In T.C.No.95 of 2015, the RTI applicant therein Mr.
Subhash Chandra Agrawal had asked about the details of the G
show cause notices and fines imposed by the RBI on various
banks. The RBI resisted the disclosure of the information
claiining exemption under Section 8(1 )(a),(d) and 8(1) (e) of
the RTIAct on the ground that disclosure would affect the
H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A economic interest of the country, the competitive position of
the banks and that the information has been received by RBI
in fiduciary capacity. The CIC, herein also, found these ·
arguments made by RBI to be totally misconceived in facts
· and in law and held that the disclosure would be in public
B interest.
46. In reply to the submission of the petitioner about
fiduciary relationship, learned counsel submitted that the scope
of Section 8( 1)(e) of the RTI Act has been decided by this Court
in Central Board of Secondary Ecfucation vs. Aditya
C Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, wherein, while rejecting
the argument that CBSE acts in a fiduciary capacity to the
students, it was held that:
" ... In a philosophical and very wide sense, examining
bodies can be said to act in a fiduciary capacity, with
D
reference to students who participate in an examination,
as a Government does while governing its citizens or as
the present generation does with reference to the future
generation while preserving the environment. But the
word 'information available to a person in his fiduciary
E
relationship' are used in Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act in
its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to
persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference
to specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be
expected to be protected or benefited by the action of
F
ttie fiduciary."
4 7. We have extensively heard all the counsels appearing
for the petitioner Banks and respondents and examined the
law and the facts.
G 48. While introducing the Right to Information Bill, 2004
a serious debate and discussion took place. The then Prime
Minister while addressing the House informed that the RTI Bill
is to provide for setting out practical regime of right to
information for people, to secure access to information .under
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 543
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency A
and accountability in the working of every public authority. The
new legislation would radically alter the ethos and culture of
secrecy through ready sharing of information by the State and
its agencies with the people. An era of transparency and
accountability in governance is on the anvil. Information, and B
more appropriately access to information would empower and
enable people not only to make informed choices but also
participate effectively in decision making processes. Tracing
the origin of the idea of the then Prime Minister who. had stated,
"Modern societies (lre information societies. Citizens tend to C
· get interested in all fields of life and demand information that
is as comprehensive, accurate and fair as possible." In the
-Bill, reference has also been made to the decision of the
Supreme Court to the effect that Right to Information has been
h.eld as inherent in Article 19 of our Constitution, thereby, o
elevating it to a fundamental right of the citizen. The Bill, which
sought to create an effective mechanism for easy exercise of
this Right, was held to have been properly titled as "Right to
Information Act". The Bill further states that a citizen has to
merely make a request to the concerned Public Information E
Officer speeifying the particulars of the information sought by
him. He is not required to give any reason for seeking
information, or any other personal details except those
. necessary for contacting him. Further, the Bill states:-
"The categories of information exempted from disclosure F
are a bare minimum and are contained in clause 8 of the
Bill. Even these exemptions are not absolute and access
can be allowed to them in public interest if disclosure of
the inf,ormation outweighs the harm to the public
authorities. Such disclosure has been permitted even if G
it is in conflict with the provisions of the Official Secrets
Act, 1923. Moreover, ba~ring two categories that relate
to information disclosure'-- which may affect sovereignty
and integrity of India etc., or information relating to Cabinet
H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20.15] 14 S.C.R.

. A papers etc.-all other categories of exempted information
would be disclosed after twenty years.
There is another aspect about which information is to be
made public. We had a lengthy discussion and it is
correctly provided in the amendment under clause 8 of
B the Bill. The following information shall be exempted from
disclosure which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty
and integrity of India; which has been expressly forbidden;
which may result in a breach of privileges of Parliament
or the Legislature; and also information pertaining to
c defence matters. They are listed in clause 8 {a) to (g).
There are exceptions to this clause. Where it is
considered necessary that the information will be
. divulged in the interest of the State, that will be done.
There must be transparency in public.life. There must
D ·be transparency in administration and people·must have
a right to know what has actually transpired in !lie
·secretariat of the State as well as the Union Ministry. A
citizen will have a right because it will be safe to prevent
corruption. Many things are done behind the curtain.
E Many shoddy deals take place in the secretariats of the
Central and State Governments and the information will
always be kept hidden. Such practice should not be
allowed in a democratic country like ours. Ours is a
republic. The citizenry should have a right to know what
F transpired in the secretariat. Even Cabinet papers, after
a decision has been taken, must be divulged as per the
provisions of this amendment. It cannot be hidden from
the knowledge of others."
G 49. Addressing the House, it was pointed out by the then
Prime Minister that in our country, Government expenditure both
at the Central and at the level of the States and local bodies, . · ·
account for nearly 33% of our Gross National Product. At the
same time, the socio-economic imperatives require our

H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 545
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

Government to intervene extensively in economic and social A
affairs. · Therefore, the efficiency and effectivenel>S of the
government processes are critical variables, which will
determine how our Government functions and to what extent it
is able to discharge the responsibilities entrusted. lrwas
pointed out that there are wkl.espread complaints in our country B
about wastefulness of expenditure, about corruption, and
matter which have relations with the functioning of the
Government. Therefore, it was very important to explore new
effective mechanism to ensure that the Government will
purposefully and effectively discharge the responsibilities C
entrusted to it. .
50. Finally the Right to Information Act was passed by
the Parliament called ''The Right to Information Act, 2005". The·
Preamble states:- .
D
"An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime
of right to information for citizens to secure access to
information under the control of public authorities, in order
to promote transparency and accountability iri the
working of every public authority, the constitution of a E
Central Information Commission and State Information
Commissions and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.
WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established
democratic Republic; F
AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed
citizenry and transparency of information which are vital
to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to
hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable
to the governed; G
AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual
practice is likely to conflict with other public interests
including efficient operations of the Governments,
H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the
preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these
conflicting interest while preserving the paramountcy of
the democratic ideal;
B
NOW, THEREFORE, it is expedient to provide for
furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to
have it."
51. Section 2 of the Act defines various authorities and
C the words. Section 20) defines right to information as under:-
"20) "right to information" means the right to information
accessible under this Act which is held by or under the
control of any public authority and includes the right to-
o (i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of
documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
E (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes,
floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other
electronic mode.or through printouts where such
information is stored in a computer or in any other
device;"
F 52. Section 3 provides that all citizens shall have the right
to information subject to the provisions of this Act. Section 4
makes it obligatory on all public authorities to maintain records
in the manner provided therein. According to Section 6, a
person who desires to obtain any information under the Act
G shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in
English or Hindi in the official language of the area in which
the application is being made to the competent authority
specifying the particulars of information sought by him or her.
Sub-section (ii) of Section 6 provides that the applicant making
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 547
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

_request for information shall not be required to give any reason A
for requesting the-information or any other personal details
except those that may be necessary for contacting him.
Section 7 lays down the procedure for disposal of ihe request
so made.by the person under Section 6 of the Act. Section 8,
however, provides certain exemption from disclosure of B
information. For better appreciation Section 8 is quoted
hereinbelow:-
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there c
shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially
affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security,
strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State,
relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an D
offence;
(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to
be published by any court of law or tribunal or the
disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
E
(c) information, the ·disclosure of which would cause a
breach of privilege of Parliament or!he State Legislature;
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade
secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which
would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless F
the competent authority is satisfied that larger public
interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary
relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied 'G
that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of
such information;
(f) information received in confidence from foreign
government;
- H.
548 SUPREME;: COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger
the life or physical safety of any person or identify the
source of information or assistance given in confidence
for law enforcement or security purposes;
(h) information which would impede the process of
B investigation or apprehension or prosecution of
offenders;
(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of
the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:
c Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the
reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which
the decisions were taken shall be made public after the
decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or
over: Provided further that those matters which come
under the exemptions specified in this section shall not
D
be disclosed;
(j) information which relates to personal information the
disclosure of which has not relationship to any public
activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted
E invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is
satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the
disclosure of such information: Prbvided that the
F information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament
or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act,
1923 (19of1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible
in accordance with sub section (1 ), a public authority may
G. allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure
outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
(3) Subjectto the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of
sub section (1 ), any information relating to any
occurrence, event or matter which has taken place,
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 549
[M. Y. EOBAL, J.]

occurred or happened twenty yeC!rs before the date on A
which any request is made under section 6 shall be
provided to any person making a request under that
section: Provided that where any question arises as to
the date from which the said period of twenty years has
to be computed, the decision of the Central Government B
shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in
this Act."
53. The information soughtfor by the respondents from
the petiticirier-Bank have been denied mainly on the ground
that such information is exempted from disclosure under C
Section 8(1)(a)(d)and (e)ofthe RTIAct.
54. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank
mainly relied upon Sect.ion 8(1 )(e) of the RTI Act taking the
stand that the Reserve Bank of India having fiduciary 0
relationship with the other banks and th.at there is no reason to
disclose such information as no larger public interest warrants
such disclosure. The primary question therefore, is, whether
the Reserve Bank of India has rightly refused to disclose
information on the ground of its fiduciary relationship with the E
. banks.
55. The Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005,
defines fiduciary relationship as "a relationship in which one
person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the
matters within the scope of the fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary F
relationship usually arise in one of the! four situations (1) when
one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who ·
as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when
one person assumes control and responsibility over another,
(3) when one person has a duty to act or give advice to another G
on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) .
when there is specific relationship that has traditionally be
recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and
a client, or a stockbroker and a customer."
H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A 56. The scope of the fiduciary relaiionship consists of
the following rules:
"(i) No Conflict rule-A fiduciary must not place himself in
a position where his own interests conflicts with that of
his customer or the beneficiary. There must be "real
B sensible possibility of conflict.
(ii) No profit rule- a fiduciary must not profit from his
position at the expense of his customer, the beneficiary;
(iii) Undivided loyalty rule- a fiduciary owes undivided
c loyalty to the beneficiary, not to place himself in a position
where his duty towards.one person conflicts with a duty
that he owes to another customer: A consequence of this
duty is that a fiduciary must make available to a customer
all the information that is relevant to the customer's affairs
D
(iv) Duty of confidentiality- a fiduciary must only use
information obtained in confidence and must not use it
for his own advantage, or for the benefit of another
person."
E 57. The term fiduciary relationship has been well
discussed by this Court in the case of Central Board of
Secondary Education andAnr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay
and Ors. (supra). In the said decision, their Lordships referred
various authorities to ascertain the meaning of the term
F fiduciary relationship and observed thus:-
"20.1) Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edition, Page 640)
defines 'fiduciary relationship' thus:
"A relationship in which one person is under a duty to
act for the benefit of the other on matters within the scope
G
of the relationship. Fiduciary relationships - such as
trustee-beneficiary, guardian-ward, agent-principal, and
attorney-client - require the highest duty of care.
Fiduciary relationships usually arise in one of four
situations : (1) when one person places trust in the faithful
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 551
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or A
influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes
control and responsibility over another, (3) when one
person has a duty to act for or give advice to another on
matters falling within the scope .of the relationship, or (4)
when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally B
been recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a
lawyer and a client or a stockbroker and a customer."
20.2) The American Restatements (Trusts and Agency)
define 'fiduciary' as one whose intention is to act for the
benefit of another as to matters relevant to the relation C
between them. The Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. 36A
page 381) attempts to define fiduciary thus :
"A general definition of the wo.rd which is sufficiently
comprehensive to embrace all cases cannot well be D
given. The term is derived from the civil, or Roman, law.
It connotes the idea of trust or confidence, contemplates
good faith, rather than legal obligation, as the basis of
the transaction, refers to the integrity, the fidelity, of the
party trusted, rather than his credit or ability, and has been E
held to apply to all persons who occupy a position of
peculiar confidence toward others, and to include those
informal relations which exist whenever one party trusts
and relies on another, as well as technical fiduciary
relations.
F
The word 'fiduciary,' as a noun, means one who holds a
thing in trust for another, a trustee, a person holding the
character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that
of a trustee, with respect to the trust and confidence
involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor G
which it requires; a person having the duty, created by
his undertaking, to act primarily for another's benefit in
matters connected with such undertaking. Also more
specifically, in a statute, a guardi.an, trustee, executor,
H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R.

A administrator, receiver, conservator, or any person acting
in any fiduciary capacity for any person, trust, or estate.
Some examples of what, in particular connections, the
term has been held to include and not to include are set
out in the note."
B 20.3) Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition (Vol. 16A,
Page 41) defines 'fiducial relation' thus :
"There is a technical distinction between a 'fiducial
relation' which is more correctly applicable to legal
c relationships between parties, such as guardian and
ward, administrator and heirs, and other similar
relationships, and 'confidential relation' which includes
the legal relationships; and also every other relationship
wherein confidence is rightly reposed and is exercised.
D Generally, the term 'fiduciary' applies to any person who
occupies a position of peculiar confidence towards
another. It refers to integrity and fidelity. It contemplates
fair dealing and good faith, rather than legal obligation,
as the basis of the transaction. The term includes those
E informal relations which exist whenever one party trusts
and relies upon another, as well as technical fiduciary
relations."
20.4) In Bristol and West Building Society vs. Mathew
[1998 Ch. 1] the term fiduciary was defined thus:
F
"A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for
and on behalf of another in a particular matter in
circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust
and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a
G fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty ..... A fiduciary must
act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his
trust; he must not place himself in a position where his
duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his
own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the
.informed. consent of his principal."
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 553
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

20.5) In Wolf vs. Superior Court [2003 (107) California A
Appeals, 4th 25] the California Court of Appeals defined
fiduciary relationship as under:
"any relationship existing between the parties to the
transaction where one of the parties is duty bound to act
with utmost good faith for the benefit of the .other party. B
Such a relationship ordinarily arises where confidence
is reposed by one person iri the integrity of another, and
in such a relation the party in whom the confidence is
reposed, if he voluntarily accepts or assumes to accept
the confidence, can take no advantage from his acts C
relating to the interests of the other party without the
· latter's knowledge and consent."
·21. The term 'fiduciary' refers to a person having a duty
to act for the benefit of another, showing good faith and 0
· condour, wh_ere such other person reposes trust and
special confidence in the person owing or discharging
the duty. The term 'fiduciary relationship' is used to
describe a situation or transaction where one person
(beneficiary) places complete confidence in another E
person (fiduciary) in regard to his affairs, business or
transaction/s. The term also refers to a person who holds
. a thing in trust for another (beneficiary)~ The fiduciary is
expected to act in confidence and for the benefit and
advantage of the beneficiary, and use good faith and F
fairness in dealing with the beneficiary or the things
belonging to the beneficiary. If the beneficiary has
entrusted anything to the fiduciary, to hold the thing in
trust o( to execute certain acts in regard to or with
reference to ihe entrusted thing, the fiduciary has to act G
in confidence and expected not to disclose the thing or
information ~o any third party. There are also certain
relationships where both the parties have to act i.n a
fiduciary capacity treating the other as the beneficiary.
Examples of these are : a partner vis-a-vis another partner
H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A and an employer vis-a-vis employee. An employee who
comes into possession of business or trade secrets or
confidential information relating to the employer in the
course of his employment, is expected to act as a
fiduciary and cannot disclose it to others. Similarly, if on
B the request of the employer or official superior or the head
of a department, an employee furnishes his personal
details and information, to be retained in confidence, the
employer, the official superior or departmental head is
expected to hold such personal. information in confidence
c as a fiduciary, to be made use of or disclosed only if the
employee's conduct or acts are found to be prejudicial
to the employer."
58. In the instant case, the RBI does not place itself ir:i a
fiduciary relationship with the Financial institutions (though, in
D word it puts itself to be in that position) because, the reports of
the inspections, statements of the bank, information related to
the business obtained by the RBI are not under the pretext of
confidence or trust. In this case neither the RBI nor.the Banks
act in the interest of each other. By attaching an additional
E "fiduciary'' label to the statutory duty, the Regulatory authorities
have intentionally or unintentionally created an in terrorem
effect.
59. RBI is a statutory body set up by the RBI Act as India's
F Central Bank. It is a statutory regulatory authority to oversee
the functioning of the banks and the country's banking sector.
Under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, RBI has
been given powers to issue any direction to the banks in public
interest; in the interest of .banking poiicy and to.secure proper
G management of a banking company. It has several otherfar-
reaching statutory powers.
60. 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
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 555
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

the benefit of any public sector or private sector bank, and A
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 B
bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and disclose
the information sought by the respondents herein.
61. The baseless and unsubstantiated argurpent of the
RBI. that the disclosure would hurt the economic interest of the
country is totally misconceived, In the impugned order, the CIC C
has given several reasons to state why the disclosure of the
information sought by the respondents would hugely serve
public interest, and non-disclosure would be significantly
detrimental to public interest and not in the economic interest
of India. RBl's argument that if people, who are sovereign, D
are made aware of the irregularities being committed by the
banks then the country's economic security would be
endangered, is not only absurd but is equally misconceived
and baseless.
E
62. The exemption contained in Section 8(1 )(e) applies
to exceptional cases and only with regard to certain pieces of
information, for which disclosure is unwarranted or undesirable.
If information is available with a regulatory agency not in ·
fiduciary relationship, there is no reason to withhold the F
disclosure of the same. However.where information is required
by mandate of law to be provided to an authority, it cannot be
said that such information is being provided in a fiduciary
relationship. As in the instant case, the Financial institutions
have an obligation to provide all the information to the RBI and
such an information shared under an obligation/ duty cannot G ·
be considered to come under the purview of being shared in
fiduciary relationship. One of the main characteristic of a
Fiduciary relationship is "Trust and Confidence''. Something
that RBI and the Banks lack between them.
H
.556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A 63. In the present case, we have to weigh .between the
public interest and fiduciary relationship (which is being shared
between the RBI and theBanks). Since, RTI Act is enacted to
empower the common people, the test to determine limits of
Section 8 of RTI Act is whether giving information to the general
B public would be detrimental to the economic interests of the
country? To what extent the public should be allowed to get
information?
64. In the context of above questions, it had long since
come to our attention that the Public Information Officers (PIO)
C under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section
8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their
hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to.
65. And in this case the RBI and the Banks have
0 sidestepped the General public's demand to give the requisite
information on the pretext of "Fiduciary relationship" and
"Economic Interest". This attitude of the RBI will only attract
more suspicion and disbelief in them. RBI as a regulatory
authority should work to make the Banks accountable to their
E .actions.
66. Furthermore, the RTI Act under Section 2(f) clearly
provides that the inspection reports, documents etc. fall under
the purview of "Information" which is obtained by the public
authority (RBI) from a private body. S.ection 2(f), reads thus:
F "information" means any material in any form, including
records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices,
press releases, circulars; orders, logbooks, contracts,
reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in
any electronic form and information relating to any private
G body which can be accessed by a public authority under
any other law for the time being in force;
67. From reading of the above section it can be inferred
that the Legislature's intent was to make available to the general
H public such information which had been obtained by the public
RESERVE BANK OF INDIAv. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 557
. ·. [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

authorities from the private body. Had it b~en the case where A
only information related to public authorities was to be
provided, the Legislature would not have included the word
. "private body". As in this case, the RBI is liable to provide
information regarding inspection report and other documents
to the general public. B
68. Even if we were to consider that RBI and the Financial
Institutions shared a "Fiduciary Relationship", Section 2(f)
would still make the information shared between them to be
aceessible by the public. The fads reveal that Banks are trying
to cover up their underhand actions, they are even more liable C
· to be subjected to public scrutiny.
69. We have surmised that many Financial Institutions
have resorted to such acts which are neither clean nor
transparent. The RBI in association with them has been trying
0
to cover up their acts from public scrutiny. It is the responsibility
of the RBI to take rigid action against those Banks which have .
been practicing disreputable business practices.
70. From the past we have also come across financial
institutions which have tried to defraud the public. These acts E
are neither in the best interests of the Country nor in the interests
of citizens. To our surprise, the RBI as a Watch Dog should
have been more dedicated towards disclosing information to
the gel'!eral public under the Right to Information Act.
71. We also understand that the RBI cannot be put in.a F
fix, by making. it accountable to every action taken by it.
However, in the instant case the RBI is accountable and as
such it has to provide information to the information seekers
under Section 10( 1) of the RTI Act, which reads as under:
G
"Section 10(1) Severability -·Where a request for
access to information is rejected on the ground that it is
in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure,
then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
access may be provided to that part of the record which H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A does not contain any information which is exempt from
disclosure unaer this Act and which can reasonably be
· severed. from any.part thatcontains
. exempt information."
.

72. It was also contended by learned senior counsel for
the RBI that disclosure of information sought for will also go
B against the economic interest of the nation. The submission
is wholly misconceived.
73. Economic interest of a nation in most common
parlance are'the goals which a nation wants to attain to fulfil its
c national objectives. It is the part of our national interest,
meaning thereby national interest can't be seen with the
spectacles(glasses) devoid of economic interest.
74. It includes in its ambit a wide range of economic
transactions or economic activities necessary and beneficial
D to attain the goals of a nation, which definitely includes as an
objective economic empowerment of its citizens. It.has been
recognized and understood without any doubt now that one of
the tool to attain this goal is to make information available to
people. Because an informed citizen has the capacity to
E reasoned action and also to evaluate the actions of the
legislature and executives, which is very important in a
participative democracy and this will serve the nation's interest
better which as stated above also includes its economic
interests. Recognizing the significance of this.tool it has not
F only been made one of the fundamental rights under Article 19
of the Constitution but also a Centrai Act has been brought
into effect on 12'" October 2005 as the Right to Information
Act, 2oo5.
75. The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it
G. · necessary that people have access to information on matters
of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of
Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters
accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open
governance' which is a foundation of democracy.
H
RESERVE BANK OF lf\IDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY . 559
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

76. But neither the Fundamental Rights nor the Right to A
Information have been provided in absolute terms. The
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 Clause 1(a)
are. restricted under Article 19 clause 2 on the grounds of
national and societal interest. Similarly SeCtion 8, clause· 1 of
Right to Information .Act, 2005, contains the exemption B
provisions where right to information can be denied to public
in the name of national security and sovereignty, national
economic interests, relations with foreign .states etc. Thus, ·
not all the information that the Government generates will or·
shall be given out to the public. It is true ttia~ gone are the days C
of closed doors policy making and they are not acceptable
also but it is equally true that there are some information which
if published or released publicly, they might actually cause more
harin than good to our national interest. .. if not domestically it
can make the·national interests vulnerable internationally and D
it is more so possible with the dividing line between national
and international boundaries getting blurred in this age of rapid
advancement of science and technology and global economy.
It has to be understood that rights can be enjoyed without an¥
inhibition only when they are nurtured within protective E
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, F
insurance and other financial institutions, proposals for
expenditure or borrowing afld foreign investment.could in some.
cases harm the national economy, particularly if released
prematurely. However, lower level economic and financial
information, like contracts and departmental budgets should· G
not be withheld under this exemption. This makes it necessary
to think when or at what stage an information is to be provided
i.e., the appropriate time of providing the information which
will depend on nature of information sought for and ·the
consequences it will lead to after coming in public domain.
H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R.

A 77. In one of the case, the respondent S.S. Vohra sought
certain infomiation in relation to the Patna Branch of ICICI Bank
and advisory issued to the Hong Kong Branch of ICICI Bank.
The contention of the respondent was tliat the Finance Minister
· had made a written statement on the floor of the House on
B- 24.07 .2009 that some banks like SBI, ICICI, Bank of Baroda,
Dena Bank etc., were violating FEMA Guidelines for opening
of accounts and categorically mentioned that the Patna Branch
of ICICI Bank Ltd. had opened some fictitious accounts which
were opened .by fraudsters and hence an advisory note was
C issued to the concerned branch on December .2007 for·its
irregularities. The Finance Minister even mentioned that in
the year 2008 the ICICI Barik Ltd. was also warned for alleged
irregular dealings in securities in Hong_ Kong. Hence·, the
respondent sought such advisory note as issued by the RBI to
D ICICI Bank. The Central Information Commissioner in the
impugned order considered the RBI Master Circular dated
01.07.2009 to all the commercial banks giving various
directions and finally held as under:-
"It has been contended by the Counsel on behalf of the
E ICICI Bank Limited that an advisory note is prepared after
reliance on documents such as Inspection Reports,
Scrutiny reports etc. and hence, will contain the contents
of those documents too which are otherwise exempt from
disclosure. We have already expressed our view in
F express terms that whether or not an Advisory Note shall
be disclosed under the RTI .Act will have to be determined
on case by case basis. In some other case, for example,
there may·be a situation.where some contents of the
Advisory Note may have to be severed to such an extent
G that details of Inspection Reports etc: can be separated
from the Note and then be provided to the RTI Applicant.
Section 10 of the RTI Act leaves it open to decide each
case on its merits after having satisfied ourselves whether
an Advisory Note needs to be provided as it is or whether
H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 561
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

some of its contents may be severed since they may be A
exempted per se under the RTI Act. However, we find no
reason, whatsoever, to apply Section 10 of the RTI Act in
order to severe the contents of the Advisory Note issued
by the RBI to the ICICI Bank Limited as the matter has
already been placed on the floor of the Lok Sabha by the B
Hon'ble Finance Minister.
This is a matter of concern since it involves the violation
of policy Guidelines initiated by the RBI and affects the
public at large. Transparency cannot be brought
overnight in any system and one can hope to witness c.
accountability in a syster;n only when its end users are
well-educated, well-informed and well-aware. If the
customers of commercial banks will remain oblivious to
the violations of RBI Guidelines and standards which
such banks regularly commit, then eventually the whole D
financial system of the country would be at a monumental
loss. This can only be prevented by suo motu disclosure
of such information as the penalty orders are already in
public domain."
E
78. Similarly, in another case the respondent Jayantilal
N. Mistry sought information from the CPIO, RBI in respect of
a Cooperative Bank viz. Saraspur Nagrik Sahkari Bank
Limited related to inspection report, which was denied by the
CPIO on the ground that the information contained therein were F
received by RBI in a fiduciary capacity and are exempt under
Section 8(1 )(e) of RTI Act. The CIC directed the petitioner to
furnish that information since the RBI expressed their
willingness to disclose a summary of substantive part of the
inspection report to the respondent. While disposing of the G
appeal the CIC observed:- ·
"Before parting with this appeal, we would iike to record
our.observations that in a rapidly urif9lding economics
scenario, there are public institutions, both iil the banking
H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.

A and non-banking sector, whose activities have not served
public interest. On the contrary, some such institutions
may have attempted to defraud the public of their moneys
kept with such institutions in trust. RBI being the Central
Bank is one of the instrumentalities available to the public
B which as a regulator can inspect such institutions and
initiate remedial measures where necessary. It is
important that the general public, particularly, the share
holders and the depositors of such institutions are kept
aware of RBl's appraisal of the functioning of such
C institutions and taken into confidence about the remedial
actions initiated in specific cases. This will serve the
public interest. The RBI Would therefore be well advised
to be proactive in disclosing information to the public in
general and the information seekers under the RTI Act,
o in particular. The provisions of Section 10(1) of the RTI
Act can therefore be judiciously used when necessary to
adhere to this objective."
79. In another case, where the respondent P.P. Kapoor
sought information inter alia about the details of default in loans
E taken from public sectqr banks by industrialists, out of the list
of defaulters, top 100 defaulters, names of the businessmen,
firm name, principal amount, interest amount, date of default
and date of availing the loan etc. The said information was
denied by the CPIO mainly on the basis that it was held in
F fiduciary capacity and was exempt from disclosure of such
information. Allowing the appeal, the CIC directed for the
disclosure of such information. The CIC' in the impugned order
has rightly obse.rved as under:-
"I wish government and its instrumentalities would
G remember that all information held by them is owned by
citizens, who are sovereign. Further, it is often seen that
banks and financial institutions continue to provide loans
to industrialists despite their default in repayment of an

H
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 563
[M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

earlier loan." This Court in UP Financial Corporation . A .
vs. Gem Cap/ndia Pvt. Ltd., AIR1993 SC 1435 has
noted that: ·
"Promoting industrialization at the cost of public funds
does not serve the public interest, it merely amounts
to transferring public money to private account'. Such B
practices have led citizens to believe that defaulters
can get away and play fraud on public funds. There is
no doubt that information regarding top industrialists
who have defaulted in repayment of loans must be
brought to citizens' knowledge; there is certainly a C
larger public interest that could be served on
.... disclosure of the same. In fact, information about
industrialists who are loan defaulters of the country may
put pressure on such persons to pay their dues. This
would·have the impact of alerting Citizens about those D
who are defaulting in payments and could also have .
some impact in shaming them.
RBI had by· its Circular DBOD No. BC/CIS/47/
20. 16.002/94 dated April 23, 1994 directed all banks to E
send a report on their defaulters, which it would share
with all banks and financial institutions, with the following
objectives: · ·
1) To alert banks and financial institutions (Fis) and to
put them on guard against borrowers who have F
defaulted in their dues to.lending institutions;
2) To make public the names of the borrowers who
have defaulted and against whom suits· have been
filed by banks/ Fis."
. G
80. At this juncture, we may refer the decision of this Court
in Mardia Chemicals Limited vs. Union of India, (2004) 4
sec 311, wherein this court while considering the validity of
SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by
banks and financial institutions ih India, held :-
H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R.

A "............ .it may be observed that though the transaction
may have a character of a private contract yet the question
of great importance behind such transactions as a whole
having far reaching effect on the economy of the country
cannot be ignored, purely restricting it to individual
B transactions more particularly when financing is through
banks and financial institutions utilizing the money of the
· people in general namely, the depositors in the banks
and public money at the disposal of the financial
institutions. Therefore, wherever public interest to such
c a large extent is involved and it may become necessary
to achieve an object which serves the public purposes,
individual rights may have to give way. Public interest
has always been considered to be above the private
interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be
o affected but it cann0t have the potential of taking over
the public interest having an impact in the socio-
economic drive of the country ........... "
81. In rest of the cases the CIC has considered
elaborately the information sought for and passed orders which
E in our opinion do not suffer from any error of law, irrationality or
arbitrariness.
82. We have, therefore, given our anxious consideration
to the matter and came to the conclusion that the Central
F Information Commissioner has passed the impugned orders
giving valid reasons and the said orders, therefore, need no
interference by this Court. ·
83. There is no merit in all these cases and hence they
are dismissed.
G

Kalpana K. Tripathy Matters dismissed.