NEW DELHI: Slapped with a show-cause understand to its governor Urijit Patel from the CIC, the Reserve Bank of India has sought time till November 26 from the fee, perfect adjudicating frame in RTI matters, for furnishing its reaction.
The case is likely to meet a dead end as information commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu will entire his time period in the panel on November 20 which can be his final date of working, sources said.
Acharyulu had asked the RBI to furnish reaction by way of November 16, however the bankers' financial institution has now sought time till November 26, sources said.
The central information fee (CIC) had issued the attention to Urijit Patel as the RBI refused to divulge the list of giant loan defaulters regardless of orders of the Supreme Court (Jayantilal Mistry case in 2015) which had asked the RBI to abide by way of probably the most orders of the then information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi calling for the disclosure of the loan defaulters underneath the Right to Information Act.
Acharyulu had said that such defiance of Supreme Court orders cannot be on the stage of central public information officer (CPIO).
He said the RBI governor should be regarded as as deemed CPIO underneath the provisions of the RTI Act for no longer disclosing the tips and explain why he should no longer face most penalty for obstructing information regardless of apex courtroom orders.
Acharyulu overturned previous position taken by way of a two-member bench of the fee comprising the then information commissioners Manjula Prasher and Sudhir Bhargava both former bureaucrats.
They have been listening to a case of activist Subhash Agrawal who had also sought the list of defaulters of Rs one crore and above underneath the RTI Act.
In 2017, they said that subject cannot be determined till Supreme Court gives an order in Prashant Bhushan case filed in 2003 by which he had sought main points of loan defaulters of Rs 500 crore and above.
Ironically, the Bhushan case which is going on in the Supreme Court is not about applicability of the RTI in the disclosure of the tips as it was once filed two years earlier than the RTI Act was once enacted.
The Supreme Court order in Jayantilal Mistry case, on which Acharyulu has relied to factor the attention to RBI governor, pertains specifically to disclosure of data of loan defaulters underneath the RTI Act .
In Mistry case in 2015, a two-member bench of the Supreme Court upheld a CIC order by way of Shailesh Gandhi directing RBI to divulge the tips on loan defaulters and rejected all the contentions of the bankers' financial institution in opposition to disclosure.
The bench alternatively most popular to go with complaints in Bhushan case where no ultimate orders have been given.
"I had pleaded very strongly before the CIC bench (Prasher and Bhargava) to consider Mistry case judgement of the SC in 2015 but they thought otherwise to rely on Bhushan case which is pending," Agrawal said.
He said in the 2017 order they determined to stay the subject pending till SC gave its order in Bhushan case regardless of clear directions of apex courtroom in Mistry case in 2015 to divulge the tips.
Although the Bhushan case pertained to looking for disclosure of loan defaulters of Rs 500 crore and above, it was once no longer about applicability of RTI on this kind of list, he said.
Even after 3 years, the Supreme Court bench which is listening to Prashant Bhushan case has no longer stayed operation of its two-judge bench order of 2015 in Jayantilal Mistry case.
The RBI has been denying the tips mentioning the clauses of monetary pursuits of the state, the industrial self assurance and the tips held in fiduciary capability.
Hearing a petition of applicant Sandeep Singh, Acharyulu rejected the contentions of the RBI.
"The commission considers the Governor as a deemed PIO responsible for non-disclosure and defiance of SC orders and CIC orders and directs him to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him for these reasons, before November 16, 2018," he had said.
He said great secrecy of vigilance studies and inspection studies was once being maintained by way of the RBI with "impunity" regardless of Supreme Court confirming the orders of CIC in Jayantilal case.
Upholding the orders of the CIC to divulge list of loan defaulters and different problems, the Supreme Court in Mistry case had said RBI was once supposed to uphold public interest and no longer the interest of person banks.
"RBI is obviously no longer in any fiduciary courting with any financial institution. RBI has no prison accountability to maximise the good thing about any public sector or private sector financial institution, and thus there is not any courting of 'accept as true with' between them. RBI has a statutory accountability to uphold the interest of the public at massive (the depositors) the country's financial system and the banking sector.
"Thus, RBI ought to act with transparency and no longer cover information that might embarrass person banks. It is accountability bound to agree to the provisions of the RTI Act and divulge the tips sought by way of the respondents," it had said.
The case is likely to meet a dead end as information commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu will entire his time period in the panel on November 20 which can be his final date of working, sources said.
Acharyulu had asked the RBI to furnish reaction by way of November 16, however the bankers' financial institution has now sought time till November 26, sources said.
The central information fee (CIC) had issued the attention to Urijit Patel as the RBI refused to divulge the list of giant loan defaulters regardless of orders of the Supreme Court (Jayantilal Mistry case in 2015) which had asked the RBI to abide by way of probably the most orders of the then information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi calling for the disclosure of the loan defaulters underneath the Right to Information Act.
Acharyulu had said that such defiance of Supreme Court orders cannot be on the stage of central public information officer (CPIO).
He said the RBI governor should be regarded as as deemed CPIO underneath the provisions of the RTI Act for no longer disclosing the tips and explain why he should no longer face most penalty for obstructing information regardless of apex courtroom orders.
Acharyulu overturned previous position taken by way of a two-member bench of the fee comprising the then information commissioners Manjula Prasher and Sudhir Bhargava both former bureaucrats.
They have been listening to a case of activist Subhash Agrawal who had also sought the list of defaulters of Rs one crore and above underneath the RTI Act.
In 2017, they said that subject cannot be determined till Supreme Court gives an order in Prashant Bhushan case filed in 2003 by which he had sought main points of loan defaulters of Rs 500 crore and above.
Ironically, the Bhushan case which is going on in the Supreme Court is not about applicability of the RTI in the disclosure of the tips as it was once filed two years earlier than the RTI Act was once enacted.
The Supreme Court order in Jayantilal Mistry case, on which Acharyulu has relied to factor the attention to RBI governor, pertains specifically to disclosure of data of loan defaulters underneath the RTI Act .
In Mistry case in 2015, a two-member bench of the Supreme Court upheld a CIC order by way of Shailesh Gandhi directing RBI to divulge the tips on loan defaulters and rejected all the contentions of the bankers' financial institution in opposition to disclosure.
The bench alternatively most popular to go with complaints in Bhushan case where no ultimate orders have been given.
"I had pleaded very strongly before the CIC bench (Prasher and Bhargava) to consider Mistry case judgement of the SC in 2015 but they thought otherwise to rely on Bhushan case which is pending," Agrawal said.
He said in the 2017 order they determined to stay the subject pending till SC gave its order in Bhushan case regardless of clear directions of apex courtroom in Mistry case in 2015 to divulge the tips.
Although the Bhushan case pertained to looking for disclosure of loan defaulters of Rs 500 crore and above, it was once no longer about applicability of RTI on this kind of list, he said.
Even after 3 years, the Supreme Court bench which is listening to Prashant Bhushan case has no longer stayed operation of its two-judge bench order of 2015 in Jayantilal Mistry case.
The RBI has been denying the tips mentioning the clauses of monetary pursuits of the state, the industrial self assurance and the tips held in fiduciary capability.
Hearing a petition of applicant Sandeep Singh, Acharyulu rejected the contentions of the RBI.
"The commission considers the Governor as a deemed PIO responsible for non-disclosure and defiance of SC orders and CIC orders and directs him to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him for these reasons, before November 16, 2018," he had said.
He said great secrecy of vigilance studies and inspection studies was once being maintained by way of the RBI with "impunity" regardless of Supreme Court confirming the orders of CIC in Jayantilal case.
Upholding the orders of the CIC to divulge list of loan defaulters and different problems, the Supreme Court in Mistry case had said RBI was once supposed to uphold public interest and no longer the interest of person banks.
"RBI is obviously no longer in any fiduciary courting with any financial institution. RBI has no prison accountability to maximise the good thing about any public sector or private sector financial institution, and thus there is not any courting of 'accept as true with' between them. RBI has a statutory accountability to uphold the interest of the public at massive (the depositors) the country's financial system and the banking sector.
"Thus, RBI ought to act with transparency and no longer cover information that might embarrass person banks. It is accountability bound to agree to the provisions of the RTI Act and divulge the tips sought by way of the respondents," it had said.
RBI seeks time till November 26 to respond to CIC's show-cause notice
![RBI seeks time till November 26 to respond to CIC's show-cause notice]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
November 11, 2018
Rating:
