Information regarding maintenance of records in the bank was sought under RTI
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Canara Bank seeking information on maintenance of records in the bank. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded to the appellant.
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the information could not be provided to the appellant on account of it being fiduciary and confidential in nature. Further no evidence of any larger public interest was given by the appellant and this was the reason why the response from the bank took cover of the exemption under sections 8(1)(d), 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; & 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. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
View of CIC
The Commission rejected the appeal observing that no further intervention of the Commission is required.
Citation: Mr. Rajasekaran M v. Canara Bank in Decision No. CIC/DS/A/2011/004355/VS/01948
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1034
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission