ISTM Logo Here

Friday, March 22, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> Supreme Court >> Proactive/suo moto Disclosure
High Courts(Proactive/suo moto Disclosure)/ CIC(Proactive/suo moto Disclosure)
S.No. SUPREME COURT CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
1 Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015. Transfer petition (Civil) no. 707 of 2012 16 Dec, 2015 RBI Vs Jayntilal N Mistry

The Applicant sought information on the RBI investigation and audit report carried out during April - May, 2010 which were sent to Registrar of the Cooperative of the Gujarat State, Gandhinagar on Co-op Banks along with last 20 years inspection reports. Further, he sought reports on all co-operative banks gone on liquidation, action taken against all Directors and Managers for recovery of public funds and powers utilized by RBI and analysis and procedure adopted. The applicant also sought the name of cooperative banks under observations against irregularities and action taken reports along with period required to take action and implementations. The CPIO declined the information under Section 8(1)(d)- fiduciary relationship.
The CIC directed the RBI to provide the information.
Supreme Court Upheld the Decision of the CIC. The main issue was weather information sought under RTI Act, 2005 can be denied by RBI and other banks to the public on the grounds that the information relates to economic interest, commercial confidence, fiduciary relationship with other bank on the one hand and public interest on the other. It is maintained that RBI is supposed to uphold the public interest and not the interest of individual banks. RBI is clearly not in any fiduciary relationship with any bank.
2 Civil appeal No 7571 of 2011 02 Sep, 2011 The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Appellant Vs Shaunak H Satya and Ors

The applicant sought information under RTI Act from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) as below:
“1) Educational qualification of the examiners & Moderators with subject wise classifications. (you may not give me the names of the examiners & moderators).
2) Procedure established for evaluation of exam papers.
3) Instructions issued to the examiners, and moderators oral as well as written if any.
4) Procedure established for selection of examiners & moderators.nCPIO provided some of the information.
Further, CIC held that, it would be wholly inappropriate to provide to the students the solutions given to the questions only for the exclusive use of the examiners and moderators. Given the confidentiality of interaction between the public authority holding the examinations and the examiners, the “solutions” qualifies to be items barred by section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. This item of information also attracts section 8(1)(d) being the exclusive intellectual property of the public authority.
The Supreme Court upheld the views of the CIC, subject to one modification in regard to query (13): ICAI to disclose to the first respondent, the standard criteria, if any, relating to moderation, employed by it, for the purpose of making revisions under Regulation 39(2).
Total Case uploaded: 2