ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Fri, Jun 14, 2024
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
46 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.
47 20 Jan, 2016 Siti Kantha Chatterjee Vs. United Bank Of India, Kolkata

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship Section Personal Information. The Respondents stated that as per their records, the loan about which information has been sought was given to a third party and the property pledged for the loan belongs to the borrower. The Commission held that there is no ground to reveal the information sought by the Appellant, and upheld the decision of the CPIO to deny the information under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
48 12 Jan, 2016 B. Ravindra Rao Vs. Syndicate Bank, Karnataka

Section 8(I)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that the opinion obtained by the bank from their lawyers/counsels cannot be disclosed, however, the same cannot be said of the opinion obtained by them from their internal legal department or the opinion/advice given by officers of the bank, contained in the note put up to the sanctioning authority for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of the said note to the Appellant after excluding/blotting out the opinion obtained by the bank from its lawyer(s)/counsel(s), but retaining the opinion given by the internal legal department of the bank. The CPIO should also exclude the names of the officers of the bank involved in obtaining the sanction.
49 29 Apr, 2015 G. MuthuKumarasamy Vs. PIO Syndicate Bank

The appellant sought information regarding a particular account maintained in the Respondent Bank. The information was denied by the Respondents under section 8(I)(e) of the RTl Act. The Appellant stated that the account in question is in the name of a religious establishment and is fed by offerings of devotees at a religious place as such he is entitled to get the information sought by him as a citizen of India and as a devotee who makes offerings at the religious place.

The Commission upheld the decision of the Respondents to deny the information.
50 15 Apr, 2015 Deepa Saxena Vs CPIO, Canara Bank

The appellant sought statement of the assets and liabilities, as on 31.3.2010, of her late husband. The CPIO denied the information under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Appellant stated that she wants the statement of assets and liabilities of her late husband because it has a bearing on her request for ex-gratia amount. The Appellant further stated that she has been paid the gratuity of her late husband and is also receiving family pension.
The Commission held that it fails to understand as to why the CPIO provided the reason for denial of ex-gratia amount, in case he was not convinced about the identity of the Appellant as the wife of late Sh. Sandeep Kumar. The Commission observed that the RTI application was responded to in a casual manner. The CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant the statement of assets and liabilities as well as a certified copy of the calculation sheet as sought.
51 31 Mar, 2015 Mahesh Chand Kukreti Vs. State Bank of India, Dehradun

The appellant sought information regarding loan details of M/s Shakti Plas International. The CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(d) & (e) of the RTI Act, the appellant preferred an appeal to the FAA stating that he wanted to know the loss suffered by the bank pertaing to loan account in question. They stated that section 44 of SBI Act casts an obligation on the Bank not to divulge any information relating to the affairs of its constituent. He also added that such information was also prohibited from disclosure under the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and under Chapter III A of collection and Furnishing of Credit Information under the RBI Act, 1934.

The Commission accepted the submissions made by the respondents and upheld their decision.
52 31 Mar, 2015 Sanjay Kushwah Vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

The appellant sought information relating to deed of assignment executed between SBI and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The CPIO denied the information under the provisions of section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party.

The commission held that information as sought for by the appellant cannot be provided to the appellant under the provisions of sections 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act, which would harm the competitive position of both the Banks viz. SBI and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., since no larger public interest warrants such information. The decision of the respondent is upheld.
53 09 Jan, 2015 Deepak Khemka Vs. RBI

The appellant complained that full information sought by him has not been provided by CPIO.

The respondents informed that information has been furnished after applying severability to certain portion as it contains information obtained as part of due diligence and has been made available to RBI in a fiduciary capacity as well as personal information. The names of individuals, addresses, property details and figures, etc., which was exempted, have been blocked out.

The CIC accepted the submission of the respondents that the information if not related to the appellant cannot be provided under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the Act. The Commission did not find any reason to interfere in the decision of the respondents.
54 06 Jan, 2015 Manish Sharma Vs. LIC of India, New Delhi

The appellant sought name and personal details of an LIC agent who deposited a particular LIC policy, etc.

CPIO denied the information treating it as personal information and also information held by LIC in fiduciary capacity.

The decision was upheld by CIC.
55 02 Dec, 2014 Anand Krishan Maitin Vs. State Bank of Patiala, New Delhi

The appellant, who is also an investor in the form of shares in M/s Milkfood Limited, sought information related to a loan given by the bank to M/s Milkfood Limited. The information included departmental note approving the loan, details of property mortgaged, valuation report, etc.

The respondents denied the information about the loan account saying that it was held by the bank in fiduciary capacity.

The CIC found that the information cannot be given to the appellant as it is covered by section 8 (1) (e) and 8 (1) (j) of the Act and upheld the decision of the respondents.
56 24 Oct, 2013 Nikhil Kumar Singh vs IGNOU New Delhi

The appellant had sought copies of all documents submitted by candidate with enrolment No 66001830 which relates to one Shari Anant Sahay - the PIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI ACT- the AA upheld the decision of the PIO.
Decision
The Commission held that the information sought by the appellant is held by the public authority in fiduciary capacity and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UPSC v Gourhari Kamila, dated 6.3.2013, such documents, held in a fiduciary capacity are exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, unless larger public interest is proved. In the instant case, no such larger public interest has been shown and hence the information sought is denied.
57 22 Oct, 2013 Sarika Jain vs National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC)

The appellant filed an RTI application with the CPIO, NTPC seeking information against 8 points, including list of projects assigned by REC to NTPC for RGGVY project under 10th and 11th Plan for state of Orissa; names
of the contractors to whom the RGGVY contract were awarded by the NTPC; contractual L2 network vis a vis actual achievement of all awarded projects for the various district of Orissa; revised L2 network vis a vis actual achievement and soon -the information was denied under sections 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The respondent stated the information in question i.e. copy of contractual L2 network vis a vis actual achievement of all awarded projects for the various districts of Orissa and copy of Revised L2 network vis a vis actual achievement is a part of their contract which contains the activities and sequence of activities. Accordingly to them, this information is held by them in their fiduciary capacity which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.
Decision
The Commission held that the information in question here is basically ""targets and achievements" of the public authority which cannot either be construed as information relating to 'personal information' of third party, or information held by the public authority in its 'fiduciary capacity'. The exemption claimed by the respondent under section 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act from disclosure of the present information is not tenable.
58 15 Jan, 2013 S.K. Sahni V.S. Indian Army

Information discloser of which would impede the process of investigation- on the basis of certain anonymous complaints, a Court of Inquiry was held against the appellant. The GCM held him guilty for various facts of omission and commission and inflicted punishment of imprisonment of three years. The punishment inflicted on him was confirmed by the Chief of Army Staff and thereafter promulgated by GOC 11 Corps
The appellant have sought information regarding the foresaid proceedings conducted against him at various levels during the period 2005 to 2010. As the CPIO had refused to disclose this information both under section 8(1)(e) and section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act citing reason that the proceedings are in progress against Co. (Retd.) Pramod Kumar and Col. (Retd.)V.K. Pant and are pending in the same mater and, therefore, disclosure of requested information would impede the pending proceeding
The Commission held that the proceeding have been completed against the appellant in all respect and, therefore, section 8(1)(h) is not attracted. The Delhi High Court in its order dated 9.11.2012 has held that the section 8(1)(e) is not attracted in Col. V.K. shad case and other case, The proceedings against the appellant have been completed in all respects an that disclosure of requested information will not cause any prejudice to the proceedings pending against Col. Pramod Kumar and Col. Pant and requested information, including JAG opinion is not barred from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
59 10 Jan, 2013 Vivek A Vashi V.S. PIO, Canara Bank, Circle Office Asst. GM, Customer Service Section, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005

The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO, asking for details of the workings capital facilities provide by the bank to their subsidiary company, Enercon India Ltd.(EIL)-the PIO denied the information under section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act-

The Commission upheld the approach taken by the respondent not to disclose information under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
60 10 Jul, 2012 Dr. A. Arun Thamburaj v Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship

The Commission held that firstly the contention is flawed in two ways, (I) the criteria of evaluation would not be disclosed by the knowledge of the marks provided to the answer in each of the questions. Further, the marks weightage allotted to each question is already in the Public Domain; (2) the personal details of the examiners would be severed under section 10 of the RTI Act and hence the evaluation criteria of the individual examiner would certainly not come under the public domain and thus disclosure of the answer sheets written by Appellant would not reveal the methodology/procedure for secret evaluation of answer sheets, prevailing at the UPSC Secondly, held that the judgment discuss the Examination conducted by the Board, but that is because the CBSE is the petitioner in the said case; however, the court has not purposefully excluded the Public Authorities conducting the examination for the employment purposes. In the absence of the conclusive definition of the term 'examination bodies', the same has to be given wider implication. Thirdly, held that the UPSC Mains Examination are limited in numbers and thus would certainly not disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. However, the Commission is not asking the Respondents to preserve the Answer sheets beyond the record retention schedule of the UPSC The right to access information does not extend beyond the period during which the UPSC is expected to retain the answer-books. The Commission directed the respondent to disclose the evaluated answer sheets written by Appellant in Zoology Paper I and Il in the Civil Services Mains Examination 2010 held on November 12, 2010 after duly severing the names and/or signatures of the Examiner or any other third party information.
Total Case uploaded: 86