In a decision of the CIC in re: R. Ronjalis vs. Indian Bank of India, dated 4/11/11 wherein the husband of a borrower had sought for some information relating to the loan account of his wife, it was held by the CIC as follows :
"The appellant had sought information about a customer of the bank which is self help group. The Appellant has claimed that his wife is a member of the said group. The Bank has denied the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act exempts information which is held in a fiduciary capacity by the public authority. The information regarding a customer can only be given to an applicant, who is the authorized signatory in the Bank.
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;'
The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information who must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship.
In the instant case very clearly a fiduciary relationship exists, since customers of a Bank come to it because of the implicit trust they have; and they provide information to the Bank for their own benefit. Customers also have a choice of which bank they wish to approach. Hence unless a large public interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure. "
Central Information Commission
Shri. R Ronjalis vs Indian Bank on 4 November, 2011
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001153/SG
1. A loan of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) was granted to Deepam Women Self Help Group having its address at West Street, Ganeshapuram, Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District Particulars of the date of grant of the said loan are required.
2. Copy of the letter from a non-governmental organization which recommended recognizing or accepting the said SHG is required.
3. How many persons had applied for the said loan? Copies of their loan applications along with the relevant documents are required in respect of each individual.
4. Particulars regarding the date of constitution of the said SHG bank norms to grant loans to the SHG, their eligibility to apply for !oan, etc are required.
5. How many applicants for the said loan from the SHG were Government employees?
Whether any pre-sanction enquiry was conducted about the credit worthiness of the borrowers? Whether any further enquiry was made to know about the nature of trade of the intending borrowers before granting the loan?
6. Particulars of those applications which were rejected and whether such applicants were informed by the branch accordingly are required.
7. Whether the said loan of Rupees Five Lakhs was granted by the Branch Manager directly or through the group concerned?
8. Particulars of instances of sanction of the loan and subsequent return of the loan for the reason 'not required' from each applicant concerned and the date of their repayment of the loan are required.
9. Particulars of loan amount disbursed to each applicant of the said SHG are required.
10. Whether the loan was granted to the members who had already opened accounts with the Bank ?
Particulars of date of opening of accounts by all the applicants are required.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO) In this regard we inform you that you have not communicated your relationship/ connection to the above account. There Is an obligation on the part of a Banker to maintain the secrecy of its customers' account and it applies to the information sought by you which fails under the ambit of 'Commercial Confidence', exempted under section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act. Therefore we express our inability to furnish the information sought by you.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Ms.R Rosali is wife of the applicant and member of the Deepam Magalir Self Help Group and the Information is not a confidential matter.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Upheld the decision of CPIO and ordered "From the appeal it is seen that the appellant is neither a Borrower/ Guarantor nor a Mortgager in the loan account of Deepam Magalir Self Help Group with our Nagercoll branch.
As Bank has the obligations to maintain the secrecy of its customers' account details and the Information falls under the ambit of 'commercial confidence' exempted under section 8(1) (d) ofRTI Act, the Information cannot be provided."
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. T. Chanderashekharan, AGM on behalf of Mr. G. Manoharanm PIO & DGM on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio;
The appellant had sought information about a customer of the bank which is self help group. The Appellatn has claimed that his wife is a member of the said group. The Bank has denied the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act exempts information which is held in a fiduciary capacity by the public authority. The information regarding a customer can only be given to an applicant, who is the authorized signatory in the Bank.
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;' The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information who must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship.
In the instant case very clearly a fiduciary relationship exists, since customers of a Bank come to it because of the implicit trust they have; and they provide information to the Bank for their own benefit. Customers also have a choice of which bank they wish to approach. Hence unless a large public interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure. In the instant case no larger public interest has been demonstrated.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information sought by the Appellant is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 04 November 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) ( PG )
No comments:
Post a Comment