Husband seeking bank account details of his wife - such information is held by the bank in fiduciary relationship and exempt from disclosure - section 8(1)(e) and section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act
26 Jul, 2013O R D E R
RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 9.3.2012 seeking details of the account of his wife. In all, information has been sought on seven points. The PIO denied the information on 12.3.2012 under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and section 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 2005.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 4.4.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO on 10.4.2012. The appellant approached the Commission on 15.5.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 9.3.2012 and stated that he was seeking financial details pertaining to his wife, but the bank has denied the information to him taking cover of the exemption clauses of the RTI Act.
5. The respondent stated that this matter was earlier heard by the Information Commission on 3.4.2013 wherein the Commission passed a decision vide No.CIC/VS/A/2012/000032/02664 upholding the decision of the FAA who had agreed with the reply of PIO denying the information to the appellant. The respondent stated that the appellant had not even appeared in that hearing.
6. The respondent stated that the appellant is seeking a vast canvas of information about his wife’s account, e.g. statements, all transactions, salary transfer, details of introducer, copy of account opening form, documents attached with the account opening form, name of nominee and relationship, annual income, details about fixed/term deposits etc. The respondent stated that this is obviously information with the bank held in the fiduciary relationship and hence this was denied on 12.3.2012 under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act and this response of the CPIO was later upheld by the FAA on 10.4.2012.
7. The appellant stated that he is seeking the information to protect his financial interests and to show his innocence in the court of law, as he has a dispute with his wife who has filed a maintenance case against him.
8. The respondent has taken action in conformity with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision
9. The decision of the FAA is upheld.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commission
Citation: Shri Pankaj Jaychand Agashe v. Canara Bank in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000990/03989