Correspondence between the IBA and the bankers pertaining to the service conditions of workmen was denied u/s 8(1)(e) - PIO: it is a privileged communication as it clarifies various issues in the interest of workers - CIC: appeal rejected
14 Dec, 2013O R D E R
RTI application
1. The appellant, in capacity of Regional Secretary of the UBI Sramik Karmachari Samity, filed an RTI application with the PIO on 9.10.2012 seeking certified copy of the IBA’s circulars/letters, with enclosures, issued during 1.7.2012 to 30.9.2012 relating to Service conditions of Workmen. The CPIO denied the information on 9.11.2012 under section 3, 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 11 of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 19.11.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA did not agree with the reply of PIO on 21.12.2012 that the information cannot be given under section 3 of the RTI Act. The appellant approached the Commission on 11.1.2013 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 9.10.2012 and stated that he is seeking information regarding the correspondence between the Indian Bank Association (IBA) and the bankers pertaining to the service conditions of workmen during a certain specific period. The appellant stated that he was seeking information essentially about the service conditions and that the information would be very conveniently available in the IBA circulars and letters along with the enclosures which have been exchanged with the respondent bank.
5. The respondent stated that as this was third party information and it was held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity, hence the information was denied by the CPIO on 9.11.2012 by citing the exemption from disclosure clauses of the RTI Act, particularly 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; . The respondent further stated that this would be harmful to the interest of the third party, i.e., the IBA in this case.
6. The appellant stated that he was seeking the information taking into account the best interests of the workmen and that the RTI application was obviously moved by considerations of public interest keeping in view what would be best for the workmen.
7. The respondent stated that the correspondence between the IBA and the bank has to be viewed in the light of the nature of the IBA, i.e., that the IBA is an apex institution which takes into consideration various dimensions of working conditions in the bank, the workmen service conditions being one of them and that after due consideration and decision making at the competent authority level, the service conditions are decided through due process and then codified. The respondent stated that the reasons why these are treated as privileged communications is to ensure that there is no confusion as the correspondence in the interim seeks to clarify various issues in the interest of what would be best and it is in this light that the correspondence between the apex institution, i.e. IBA and the bank should not be passed on to any other person.
8. The appellant stated that the FAA had, in his decision dated 21.12.2012, overruled the reply of the CPIO and directed to provide the information.
9. The respondent stated that the FAA did not agree with the decision of the CPIO denying the information under section 3 of the RTI Act, but the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO to deny the information 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.
Decision
10. The decision of the FAA is upheld. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commission
Citation: Shri A.R. Shah v. United Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000258/05599