ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Fri, Dec 13, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exemption >> Fiduciary Relationship
Supreme Court(Fiduciary Relationship)/ High Courts(Fiduciary Relationship)
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
31 CIC/BS/A/2015/000842/10692
(72.43 KB) pdf icon
29 Jun, 2016 P D Raphael vs Department of Posts, Thrissur

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship.

The appellant stated that he wanted information relating to four registered letters mentioned in his RTI application.
The Commission held that the appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought is for larger public purpose, hence, there is no need to interfere with the respondent's decision.
32 CIC/MP/A/2016/000033
(101.72 KB) pdf icon
10 Jun, 2016 Sandeep Kumar vs State Bank of Patiala, Amritsar

Section8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship.


Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013. Section 16 Denying of Information. The appellant submitted an RTI application before the CPIO, State Bank of Patiala (SBP), Amritsar seeking certified copy of Enquiry Committee report on the sexual harassment at workplace against him by a lady sub staff posted in the same branch.

The Commission held that the contents of the enquiry report had been provided to the appellant. Moreover, as per section 16 of Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 stipulate "notwithstanding anything contained in the RTI Act, 2005, the contents of the complaint made under section 9, the identity and address of the aggrieved woman, respondent and witnesses, any information relating to conciliation and inquiry proceedings, recommendations of the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, and the action taken by the employer or the District Officer under the provisions of this Act shall not be published, communicated or made known to the public, press and media in any manner.
33 CIC/VS/A/2014/001068-AB
(102.14 KB) pdf icon
01 Jun, 2016 Nagaprasad H.J vs South Western Railway, Hubli

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship.

The Commission held that the answer sheet and answer key to the candidate can be disclosed under the RTI Act, however, the marks obtained and cut off marks under each category cannot be provided as they are not finalised yet.
34 CIC/VS/A/2013/001178/MP
(168.17 KB) pdf icon
27 May, 2016 S. S. Vohm Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship
The Commission relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 16.12.2015 wherein it was held that 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 bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and disclose the information sought by the respondents. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide inspection reports/file notings for two years prior to 2012 in respect of Dhanalakshmi Bank, Indian Overseas Bank and also two NBFCs viz. Muthoot Finance and Narayan Sriram Investments to the appellant.
35 CIC/SH/A/2015/000500
(318.86 KB) pdf icon
25 May, 2016 Sannjay Mahipal Vs. Central Bank of India, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(e)— Fiduciary Relationship

The Commission held that the bank holds the information concerning the accounts of M/S Sunrays Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in a fiduciary capacity and it is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, in the absence of a finding of larger public interest. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest. His personal dispute with the company cannot become the ground of larger public interest. Further, the above position does not change even if it is established that he was a director of the company in the past. The fact remains that he was not a director at the time of filing of the RTI application. The decision of the CPIO is upheld.
36 CIC/SH/A/2015/000473
(342.60 KB) pdf icon
19 May, 2016 Mrityunjay Kumar Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship

The Commission held that since the information concerns the accounts of two companies (juristic person) and not of an individual, clause (j) of sub-section (1) of section 8 is not applicable in this case. However, the bank holds the information concerning the accounts of its customers in a fiduciary capacity and, therefore, it is exempted from disclosure under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the two companies mentioned above qualify as third parties in this case and this position does not change merely because they are customers of the bank. The Commission upheld the decision of the Respondents to deny the remaining information under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
37 CIC/SH/A/2015/000173
(210.71 KB) pdf icon
30 Mar, 2016 Sanjay Dixit vs IDBI Bank Ltd., Mumbai

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship

The Commission held that mere pendency of a matter in a court or tribunal cannot become the ground of denial of information. No court of law or tribunal has expressly forbidden disclosure of the information. Section 8(1)(h) does not apply in this case as there is no case of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

The Appellant has sought a copy of the legal report of the bank's panel advocate, based on which the loan was granted. Such information cannot be provided as it involves a fiduciary relationship, covered by section of the RTI Act.
38 CIC/BS/A/2015/000425+00464+000465+000466/10071
(56.51 KB) pdf icon
30 Mar, 2016 Vishal Keshav vs EPFO, Thane

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship

The Commission held that the information relating to PF subscriber maintained by EPFO is held under fiduciary relationship and is personal in nature and exempted from disclosure to third party under sections 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act unless the seeker of information is able to show larger public interest to justify the disclosure.

Further, the Commission relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its decision dated 01 /07 /2009 [W.P.(C) 803/2009 Vijay Prakash v UOI and Ors.], wherein, it has been clarified that in a private dispute, between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under section 8(1) (j) cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in 'public interest'.
39 CIC/CC/A/2015/902765
(43.08 KB) pdf icon
28 Mar, 2016 A. Selvakumar vs Bhabha Atomic Research Centre

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship

The Commission held that the information sought by the appellant related to details with respect to vehicles used in DAE township in Kalpakkam.

The appellant has refocused his query stating that mandatory requirement that is fitness certificate for each of these vehicles has been ignored by the respondent authority. While information relating to certain queries like log book of vehicles need not be provided, information relating to fitness certificate which is a mandatory requirement by the RTO for running any vehicle can be disclosed.
40 CIC/YA/A/2015/000739
(47.45 KB) pdf icon
17 Mar, 2016 Neeraj Kumar vs Coal India Limited, Kolkata

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship

The Commission held that the Respondent has sought to hold back information against only point 4 viz. the answer keys on the ground that the question bank is limited and is likely to be repeated in future.

The Commission finds no merit in the Respondent's contention because the examination in this case is for recruitment of Management Trainee (Environment) in Coal India Limited and questions are of no super specialty level nor exclusive so as to consider the question bank to be limited. Accordingly, the Commission directed the PIO to provide information.
41 CIC/MP/A/2015/001680
(87.97 KB) pdf icon
15 Mar, 2016 Basavraj Sharanappa Hagargi vs State Bank of Hyderabad, Gulbarga

The appellant submitted an RTI application before the CPIO, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gulbarga, seeking a copy of the application for agriculture loan and pass book in respect of late Smt. Sangamma pertaining to her account.

The Commission held that the information as sought by the appellant related to third party and could not be provided under the provisions of sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act and upheld the decision of the CPIO.
42 CIC/CC/A/2014/002773
(297.53 KB) pdf icon
23 Feb, 2016 Jaspal Singh Virk VS. Sainik School, Kapurthala

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship Supply of copies of answer sheet the Commission held that the Supreme Court in its decision dated 04.02.2016 in the matter of Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. Vs. The State Information Commission & Anr. held that the information sought for by the information seeker with regard to the supply of copies of his answer sheet of the written test, copy of the tabulation sheet and other information, details of the interview marks can be and should be provided to him. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days Of this order, copy of answer sheet of his son who appeared in Entrance Examination. The public authority is advised to amend their rules related to providing copies of answer sheet to the candidate himself.
43 CIC/MP/A/2015/001592
(47.26 KB) pdf icon
18 Feb, 2016 R.V. Kamraj vs State Bank of India, Chennai

The Commission held that the respondents cannot provide the appellant any information with respect to the loan account of their customer as long as the appellant does not provide any evidence of his being the legal heir of his father's property. The information being sought is third party information and being held by the respondents in fiduciary capacity. The denial of information, therefore, u/s 8(I)(e) and (j) is found to be appropriate at this stage.
44 CIC/SH/A/2014/003050
(221.32 KB) pdf icon
15 Feb, 2016 Rashmi Gupta vs Central Bank of India, UP

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship

The Commission held that we are in agreement with the Respondents that the accounts being those of partnership firms, in which the Appellant's late husband was one of the three partners, the information sought by the Appellant cannot be provided in the absence of a succession certificate in her favour.

The CPIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant, free of charge, within fifteen days of her providing to the bank a succession certificate in her favour.
45 CIC/SH/A/2015/000981
(497.49 KB) pdf icon
25 Jan, 2016 M. Padamanabha Reddy Vs. Vijaya Bank, Bangalore

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship Section 8(2) Public Interest. The Commission held that section 8(2) of the RTI Act mandates that even where disclosure of information is protected by the exemptions under section 8(1) of the RTI Act, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to such protected interests, the information must be disclosed under the RTI Act. The respondent could follow the same criteria/categories while providing the information sought by the Appellant regarding defaulters. The CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant the information sought by him.
Total Case uploaded: 85