SC refers to other bank defenses by banks against the disclosure of information in the context of RTI

New Delhi, August 17 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday referred to another bank the petitions from banks including SBI and HDFC Bank Ltd and the list of defaulting claimants under the Right to Information Act (RTI).

A bank, consisting of Judges S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, considered the fact that one of Judge L institutions must disclose information under the Transparency Act.

On April 28, a bank refused Judges Rao and Vineet Saran to overturn the sentence, as requested by some banks, on the grounds that the law and the rulings of the Supreme Court did not allow the recall requests to be upheld .

However, it had allowed the banks to seek other appeals against the RBI’s judgment and instructions to them in the Supreme Court, and the grounds of complaint were listed before the bank headed by Judge Nazeer, who made the decision to approach the bank, which it had dealt with the subject earlier.

Banks had previously stated that they were neither parties nor a hearing in a case that led to the 2015 ruling that RBI must provide information such as confidential annual reports and a list of debtors under the Transparency Act.

The Center, State Bank of India (SBI), Punjab National Bank (PNB), Canara Bank (CB), Union Bank of India (UBI) and HDFC Bank Ltd have postponed the Supreme Court to rule on To contest 2015 in the Jayantilal N Mistry case and the resulting instructions from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) asking them to provide relevant information to applicants under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The bank headed by Judge Nazeer had announced that it would first decide whether the claims of the banks and the center should be dealt with by a bank headed by Judge Rao.

The story goes on

“To be fair, the case should go to a bank headed by Judge Rao,” Judge Nazeer said.

Attorney General Tushar Mehta, who appears for SBI, said he had no problem which bank is hearing the case, but the matter had to be negotiated by a three-person jury as “the issue of the legal embargo (under RTI) on withholding confidential information” not mentioned in the judgment ”.

A bank headed by Jusitce Rao and headed by Jusitce Rao then rejected the banks ‘requests to overturn the 2015 ruling and made it clear that it would not deal with any of the banks’ submissions regarding the correctness of the ruling.

“Rejection of these requests does not prevent applicants (banks) from pursuing other legal remedies available to them,” it said.

“Banks were not parties in the case in which the verdict was given,” said senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, the fourth party, who works for HDFC Bank.

The RBI justified that it had a fiduciary relationship with the banks and therefore could not part with the information to applicants under the RTI, said Rohatgi, adding that the banks had many other reasons and then did not take them into account they were not parties to the dispute.

The motion was denied by attorney Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for the RTI activist, saying the Indian Banks’ Association, of which all banks are affiliated, and the ICICI were parties to the plea.

The attorney general had stated that the matter would have to be heard by a bench of three judges and that a holistic judicial consideration of the whole matter was necessary as banks were not involved in the 2015 ruling.

Banks are annoyed by the RBI notices addressed to them under Section 11 (1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, asking them to part with information on their inspection reports and risk assessments.

The RTI Act empowers the RBI’s CPIO to obtain information from banks.

On April 28, the Supreme Court refused, on legal grounds, to recall its 2015 ruling in the Jayantilal N Mistry case, which found that RBI had disclosed information about banks and financial institutions (FIs) it regulates under the Transparency Act.

Several financial institutions and banks, including CB, Bank of Baroda, UCO Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank, had petitions with the Supreme Court to overturn the 2015 ruling.

The banks had argued that the actions for the withdrawal of the judgment instead of a review were “tenable”, since a violation of the principles of natural law violated, since they were neither parties nor a hearing.

“A close examination of the recall requests makes it clear that the plaintiffs are essentially seeking a review of the Jayantilal N Mistry judgment. We are therefore of the opinion that these applications cannot be maintained, ”the top court decided.

In rejecting the pleas in law, however, the bank had made it clear that it was not addressing the banks’ statements on the accuracy of the 2015 ruling.

Now the Supreme Court is being attacked by several pleadings by banks against the RBI’s instruction to disclose information in the context of RTI. PTI SJK SJK RKS RKS

Comments are closed.