Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(banking rti pio,financial rti,jayantilal mistry,rbi inspection reports rti,willful defaulter rti,tax records rti,fiduciary banking rti)&metatag-description=(How PIOs handle banking, regulatory, and tax-record RTIs after //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry// — what's disclosable, what's protected, and drafting templates.)}}
+====== Banking, Financial, and Tax RTIs — A PIO Playbook ======
+{{ :social:auto:pio-banking-financial-rti.png?direct&1200 |Banking / financial RTI — RTI Wiki}}
+{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
+<WRAP info>
+**Core rule.** //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry// (2016) 3 SCC 525 — the regulator-regulated relationship is NOT fiduciary. Inspection reports, willful-defaulter lists, risk assessments held by RBI are disclosable. But customer-level account data remains protected under §8(1)(j).
+</WRAP>
+===== Legal framework =====
+  * **§8(1)(e)** — fiduciary exemption, narrowed by //Jayantilal Mistry//.
+  * **§8(1)(d)** — commercial confidence, for genuine trade-secret content.
+  * **§8(1)(j)** — personal information (customer-level data).
+  * **Income Tax Act, §138** — statutory secrecy of individual tax records; interacts with §22 of RTI Act (overriding effect).
+  * **§10** — severability; essential in mixed-customer-regulatory records.
+===== Decision matrix =====
+|= Element |= Default |= Reasoning |
+| RBI inspection report on a named bank | Disclose | //Jayantilal Mistry// |
+| Willful-defaulter list | Disclose | //Mistry// line; public interest |
+| Risk-assessment report on a bank | Disclose | //Mistry// |
+| Customer bank account details | Exempt | §8(1)(j) |
+| Loan agreement of a private borrower | Exempt | §8(1)(j) + §8(1)(d) |
+| Bank's own circular on interest rates | Disclose | Institutional, public |
+| SEBI order on a listed company | Disclose | Final order, post-decisional |
+| Stock-exchange compliance files | Mostly disclose | Institutional |
+| Individual tax-return details | Exempt | IT Act §138 + §8(1)(j) |
+| Tax-enforcement action against PSU | Partial | Institutional portion disclosable |
+| GST registration details of businesses | Disclose | Publicly listed on GSTN |
+| CBIC circular | Disclose | Institutional |
+| Insurance policy holder details | Exempt | §8(1)(j) + §8(1)(e) privacy |
+| IRDAI action on an insurer | Disclose | //Mistry// line |
+===== Decision framework =====
+  - **Step 1.** Identify the holder — regulator (RBI/SEBI/IRDAI/CBIC) or regulated entity.
+  - **Step 2.** If regulator, default to disclosure of regulator's records per //Mistry//.
+  - **Step 3.** If regulated entity, check whether it is a "public authority" under §2(h) — PSU banks yes, private banks no (RTI doesn't apply to private banks directly).
+  - **Step 4.** Identify customer-specific elements — redact under §10 + §8(1)(j).
+  - **Step 5.** Identify trade-secret elements (proprietary risk models, bid formulas) — §8(1)(d).
+  - **Step 6.** Section 11 notice to third parties (borrowers, investors, policy-holders) where their confidentiality is implicated.
+  - **Step 7.** Speaking reply citing //Mistry// where fiduciary is invoked and narrowed.
+===== Template — regulatory inspection report disclosure =====
+<code>
+The RTI seeks the inspection report of [Bank/Insurer/Exchange]. This Office holds the report in its statutory regulatory capacity.
+Following the Supreme Court in //RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry// (2016) 3 SCC 525, the relationship between a regulator and a regulated entity is not a fiduciary relationship. Inspection reports are therefore not exempt under Section 8(1)(e).
+The report is enclosed at Annexure A, with the following redactions under Section 10:
+- Customer-specific account data — §8(1)(j)
+- Proprietary risk-model formulas — §8(1)(d)
+First-appeal rights preserved.
+</code>
+===== Template — refusal of customer-level data =====
+<code>
+The RTI seeks [loan details / account details / insurance claim details] of Shri X. The information is personal information of a third party and is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
+This Office has applied §8(2) balancing. No larger public interest has been pleaded. //Girish Deshpande// (2013) 1 SCC 212 supports the narrow reading of third-party personal financial data protection.
+Section 11 notice was issued to the third party; no objection to confidentiality was waived.
+Severability under §10: No non-exempt portion separable.
+First-appeal rights preserved.
+</code>
+===== Subject-wise examples =====
+  * **RTI for a PSU bank's NPA status.** Institutional disclosure; //Mistry//.
+  * **RTI for a named borrower's default status.** §8(1)(j); exempt.
+  * **RTI for RBI's show-cause notice to a co-op bank.** Disclose after the notice has been adjudicated.
+  * **RTI for a chartered accountant's working papers held by SEBI.** Working papers are fiduciary (auditor-client); but SEBI's regulatory use of them is disclosable — surgical §10 redaction needed.
+  * **RTI for own GST registration record.** Disclosable to self.
+  * **RTI for a private bank's branch data.** RTI doesn't apply to the private bank; but RBI's supervisory record does.
+===== Case law =====
+  * //RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry// (2016) 3 SCC 525 — narrow fiduciary reading; inspection reports disclosable.
+  * //Girish Deshpande// (2013) 1 SCC 212 — third-party personal data under §8(1)(j).
+  * //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay// (2011) 8 SCC 497 — four-factor fiduciary test.
+===== Common mistakes =====
+  * Blanket §8(1)(e) refusal citing "fiduciary" — struck down by //Mistry//.
+  * Over-disclosing customer-level data.
+  * Mixing tax-return secrecy (IT Act §138) with generic RTI analysis — §138 has its own regime.
+  * Ignoring §10 severability in mixed records.
+  * Assuming private-bank records are outside RTI entirely — the **regulator's** records on the private bank are within RTI.
+===== Pro tips =====
+  * **Build a customer-data redaction filter** in the regulator's RTI workflow.
+  * **Coordinate with the enforcement wing** before releasing live-investigation material.
+  * **Use §4(1)(b) to publish** frequently-asked institutional data — reduces RTI load.
+  * **Update "willful defaulter" disclosures** regularly per RBI's own circulars.
+===== FAQs =====
+**Q1. Can a private bank reject RTI?**\\ A private bank is not a public authority. But RBI's supervisory records about the private bank are within RTI.
+**Q2. Can SEBI refuse to disclose its investigation into a company?**\\ During live investigation — §8(1)(h) applies. Post-order — disclose.
+**Q3. Is my own income-tax return disclosable to me?**\\ Yes — self data to self.
+**Q4. Can I seek details of a taxpayer I suspect is evading tax?**\\ Third-party tax data is exempt under IT Act §138 + §8(1)(j). Proper route is the Department's grievance portal, not RTI.
+===== Conclusion =====
+The banking and regulatory RTI landscape is largely settled after //Mistry//: regulator records disclosable, customer data protected, severability the work-horse tool. Apply the framework, and the replies hold.
+===== Related reading =====
+  * [[:pio-section-8-1-e-fiduciary|Section 8(1)(e) fiduciary framework]]
+  * [[:pio-section-8-1-j-framework|Section 8(1)(j) framework]]
+  * [[:pio-supreme-court-rulings|10 landmark SC rulings]]
+  * [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO & FAA knowledge base]]
+===== Sources =====
+  * RTI Act, 2005, §§8(1)(d), (e), (j), 10, 22
+  * Income Tax Act, §138
+  * //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry// (2016) 3 SCC 525
+----
+//Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.//
+{{tag>pio banking financial tax jayantilal-mistry fiduciary scenario}}

Was this helpful? — views