Seeking statement of husband’s saving account to get maintenance - CIC: It was third party information held in fiduciary capacity by the bank; The appellant may request the Court to direct the Bank to produce the details of the accounts held by her husban
17 Sep, 2016ORDER
1. Smt Uma Gogia, the appellant, sought the statement of savings account of her husband, Shri Kiran Kumar’s account no. 10851402414 for the last four years or from the date of the account whichever was earlier along with details of all accounts including demat account in a table provided by her stating that the information sought by her was not third party information through her RTI application dated 17.4.2015. She had also stated that she had filed suit for maintenance against her husband and the court had ordered her husband to file his income and expenditure statement.
2. The CPIO responded to her vide his letter dated 16.5.2015 intimating that the information sought by her related to third party’s personal information and was held by the bank in fiduciary relationship, the disclosure of which was exempt u/s 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; and 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. 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. Further, it was the primary responsibility of the bank to maintain the secrecy of their customers with regard to their affairs. He, however, intimated her that the branch had no locker facility. Dissatisfied with the CPIO’s response, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority who upheld the decision of the CPIO. Aggrieved with the adjudication of her first appeal, the appellant approached the Commission stating that her husband had a duty to provide all information to his wife and she had a right to get this information. Her request for information had been incorrectly rejected.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s, brother who attended the hearing late, stated that the appellant required the information to get maintenance from her husband. Her suit in this respect was already pending in the court and she required this information to get proper maintenance from her husband. The respondents stated that the appellant had sought third party information and therefore they had denied it u/s 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. 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. and 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act. Further, they maintain the confidentially of their customers accounts. The SBI Act, 1955, Section 44, regarding obligation as to fidelity and secrecy, reads as - “The State Bank shall observe, except as otherwise required by law, the practices and usages customary among bankers, and, in particular, it shall not divulge any information relating to or to the affairs of its constituents except in circumstances in which it is, in accordance with the law or practice and usage customary among bankers, necessary or appropriate for the State Bank to divulge such information.”
4. On hearing both the parties and going through the available records, the Commission holds that the CPIO and FAA had taken a correct view in the matter as the information being sought was third party information held by the respondents in fiduciary capacity. As the matter is already going on in the court, the appellant may like to take recourse to request the court to direct the respondent authority to produce the details of the accounts held by her husband, Shri Kiran Kumar in the court. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ms Uma Gogia v. State Bank of India in Appeal No . CIC/MP/A/2015/001788