Information about snap inspection conducted by RBI against the constituent banks was denied u/s 8(1)(a) - PIO: investigation was pending & Delhi HC had directed CIC to adjourn the matter; now investigation over - CIC: provide the outcome of investigation

ORDER

Facts:

1. The appellant, Shri Vinod Varshney, submitted RTI application dated 12 October 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai; seeking information regarding snap inspection report of Kanth Road Branch of PNB, Moradabad as conducted by RBI’s Lucknow office as referred by respondent’s letter dated 31.8.2012 etc., through a total of 3 points.

2. Vide reply dated 27 November 2012, CPIO furnished information on point nos. 2 & 3 and denied the information on point no. 1 under section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 10 December 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had wrongly been denied the information on point no. 1 by the CPIO concerned. No order has been passed by the FAA in this case.

3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard today. The appellant’s representative submitted that information sought is required regarding the action taken by the public authority against officials involved in fake currency notes complaints. The appellant insisted that the information sought does not harm the national, economic interest of the state and thus Section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI Act, 2005 does not gets attracted.

5. The CPIO submitted that the information sought regarding the correspondence between the Reserve Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, complaint filed with the police, copy of the explanation letters sent to the authority for delay in filing FIR have been provided to the appellant. Since the investigation was pending, details of the inspection report/scrutiny reports may not be provided to the appellant. Also, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case RBI vs. Ashwini Dixit WP 1976/2012 has passed an interim order dated 10 April 2012 directing the CIC to adjourn the matters related to disclosure of investigation reports prepared by the RBI against the constituent banks. However, as on date the investigation is complete.

Decision Notice

6. The Commission accepts the CPIO’s submission. However, the CPIO is directed to provide the outcome of the investigation to the appellant in the next 10 days.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Vinod Varshney v. Reserve Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001090/MP