Disclosure of information related to loans provided by a bank

Background

The appellant sought information regarding grant of car loans by the city branch of SBI, Varanasi, to persons for purchase of cars from agency which as per the appellant did not exist. The appellant also sought information regarding loans advanced to railway officials by Sigra branch of SBI against whom Civil Suits had been filed in court for non recovery. The PIO denied information citing the provisions of section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted 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: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act which was upheld by the FAA. The appellant argued for disclosure of the names and other particulars of the persons who were sanctioned loans on the grounds that fraud had been committed by these persons on the Bank which was the custodian of public money and that the Bank had not taken adequate action against these persons. Respondent stated that in the first matter, the matter was under investigation by the Vigilance Department of the Bank and after the investigation was completed, FIR would be filed against the erring parties (borrowers and dealer). In respect of the matter of the Sigra branch of SBI, the respondent clarified that the matter was not a case of criminal impersonation by any of the borrowers. It was a case where accounts had gone bad and that civil suits had been instituted against the defaulters.

View of CIC

The Commission agreed with the averments of the appellant and directed to provide the information within one week of receipt of the order.

Comments

Information about loans provided by a bank is not to be ordinarily disclosed unless a public interest can be established.

Citation: Shri Girija Shankar Jaiswal v. SBI in file no. CIC/DS/A/2011/000754