Opposing RTI (Right to Information) requests seeking disclosure of information about customers and names of big defaulters, banks have urged the Supreme Court to refer the case to a larger bench as it involves issues of immense public importance. The court will hear petitions by the various public sector and private banks on July 22.
In 2015, a 2-judge bench of the top court had made the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) accountable under the RTI Act, thereby allowing public disclosure of RBI’s annual inspection reports and list of defaulters.
Despite vociferous opposition to the order by the RBI and various banks, the court has dismissed various requests thereafter to stay its ruling.
Appearing for the State Bank of India (SBI), Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta argued that how can banks break the trust reposed in them by customers by disclosing their personal information under the garb of the RTI Act.
Urging the court not to initiate contempt action against banks for not sharing inspection reports, SG submitted that banks supported transparency but not at the cost of disclosure of personal details of individuals.
Questioning the credentials of the RTI activists who had sought details of big defaulters from banks, SG argued that court should take note of the people who have made a business out of filing RTI applications.
Appearing for an RTI activist, Prashant Bhushan objected to being labelled as “motivated” and “having vested interests”. Citing examples of people like Vijay Mallya sitting overseas with loans worth thousands of crores of public money, Bhushan argued that it was astounding that the country’s 2nd highest law officer was terming RTI activists as blackmailers while claiming that there were reports of even judges being snooped upon.
Appearing for Axis Bank and the HDFC Bank, senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi pointed out that the RTI Act applies only to government offices and entities and can’t be extended to private banks.
Referring to RBI rules which mandate confidentiality of banks’ inspection reports, even from the bank directors and employees, Rohatgi submitted that disclosure of personal information will harm the competitive position of businesses.
Questioning the intent of the activists seeking information on customers of private banks in the garb of RBI’s inspection reports, he told the court that everyone knows what the info is used for.
He gave an example, that if data on companies wanting to borrow money to develop electric vehicles are made public, it will serve as a useful piece of info for their rivals to scuttle their plans.
Stressing on the fiduciary relationship of the RBI with individual banks, he pointed out that the 2015 2-judge bench verdict was followed by a 9-judge bench judgement in 2017 which defined the right to privacy as a fundamental right while seeking reconsideration of the 2015 ruling by a larger bench.
