Jump to content
karira

RBI Violating RTI Act and Supreme Court Judgments- complaint to CIC by Shailesh Gandhi

Recommended Posts

karira

From an email received from Mr Shailesh Gandhi:

 

Shailesh Gandhi

B2, Gokul Apartment, Podar Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai 400054

email: XXXXXXXXXX Tel: XXXXXXXXXXX

Complaint under Section 18 (1) (f) of the RTI Act

To,

The Chief Information Commissioner,

August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110067.

Dear Sir,

I am making a complaint under Section 18 (1) (f) against the Reserve Bank of India. Section 18 (1) (f) provides for a complaint “in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.” Hence there is no RTI application with this.

 

RBI has issued what it calls a ‘Disclosure Policy’ on its website at: Reserve Bank of India - Database

 

The list of information which shall not be given is justified by the proclamation that: ‘While compiling the ( nondisclosure) list, it has been the Bank's endeavour to attain the objectives of the RTI Act, without jeopardizing the financial stability and economic interests of the State.’ Effectively it means that RBI arrogates to itself the right to lay down exemptions to disclosure of information in line with the objectives of the Act. This is the sole prerogative of Parliament which has provided the exemptions to disclosure in Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.

 

You will be aware that the Supreme Court of India had in a clutch of nine transfer cases of RBI ruled that the decisions of CIC in ordering information to be provided were correct had said “We have, therefore, given our anxious consideration to the matter and came to the conclusion that the Central Information Commissioner has passed the impugned orders giving valid reasons and the said orders, therefore, need no interference by this Court.” Even these have been listed as information which will not be disclosed.#

 

It is an irony that the ‘Disclosure Policy’ only lists information which will not be disclosed in the garb of claiming exemptions under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. This is illegal and is certainly usurpation of the powers of the commission. RBI has no power under law to declare which information is exempt. That is the role of the commission. This is a very dangerous and illegal action, which could cause complete disruption of the working of RTI, if other public authorities follow this example. PIO’s of public authorities will then be following the illegal proclamation of their organizations instead of the RTI Act.

 

Relief sought: Please declare this action of RBI illegal and reprimand them for this illegal act.

 

This matter needs to be heard urgently, since this is a major threat to the fundamental right of citizens. I am also a senior citizen.

 

Yours truly

 

Shailesh Gandhi,

Former Central Information Commissioner 16 December 2016

Enclosed: List of information ordered to be given by CIC orders

Love

shailesh

All my emails are in public domain.

Mera Bharat Mahaan Nahi Hai,

Per yeh Dosh, Mera Hai

Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

==========================================================

 

RBI was ordered to provide information listed below by the orders of the Central Information Commission# which were upheld by the Supreme Court on 16 December 2015.

RBI is now defying these and pronounced its own non-disclosure policy at Reserve Bank of India - Database.

# Orders given by Shailesh Gandhi

 

I. Jayantilal Mistry: CIC/SM/A/2011/001487/SG/15434

[TABLE=width: 675]

[TR]

[TD]1.[/TD]

[TD]Last RBI investigation and audit report carried out by Mr. Santosh Kumar during 23/04/2010 to 06/05/2010 sent to Registrar of the co - operative of Gujarat, Gandhinagar on Makarpura Industrial Estate Co - Operative Bank Ltd. Reg No. 2808.[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]2.[/TD]

[TD]Last 20 years inspection report carried out with the name of inspector on the above named bank and action taken report.[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]3.[/TD]

[TD]Reports on all co - operative banks that have gone into liquidation and action taken against all directors and managers for recovery of public funds, powers utilized by RBI and analysis, and procedures adopted.[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]4.[/TD]

[TD]Names of remaining co - operative banks un der your observations against irregularities and action taken reports.[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]5.[/TD]

[TD]Period required to take actions and implementations.[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

II. Venugopal CIC/SG/A/2011/002011/15404

1. Under which Grade The George Town Co-operative Bank, Chennai – 600079, has been categorized as on 31.12.2006.

 

III .Mittal CIC/SG/A/2011/002793/15661

 

  1. Kindly provide copies of inspection reports of apex co-operative banks of various states/Mumbai District Co-operative Bank from 2005 till date.

IV.Kapoor CIC/SM/A/2011/001376/SG/15684

The PIO shall provide the complete information as per records on queries 2(b) The Commission also directs the Governor, RBI to display this information on its website, in fulfillment of its obligations under Section 4 (1) (b) (xvii) of the RTI Act. This direction is being given under the Commission’s powers under Section 19 (8) (a) (iii). This should be done before 31 December, 2011 and updated each year.

(b) Details of default in loans taken from public sector banks by industrialists. Out of above list of defaulters, top 100 defaulters, name of the businessman, address, firm name, principal amount, interest amount, date of default and date of availing loan.

 

© Steps being taken for putting information sought in query 2(a) and list of defaulters on the website of the Respondent – public authority.

 

V. Subhash Chandra Agrawal

[TABLE=width: 625]

[TR]

[TD]1.[/TD]

[TD]Complete and detailed information including related documents / correspondence / file noting etc of RBI on imposing fines on some banks for violating rules like also referred in enclosed news clipping.[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]2.[/TD]

[TD]Complete list of banks which were issued show-cause notices before fine was imposed as also referred in enclosed news clipping mentioning also default for which show-cause notice was issued to each of such banks.[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]3.[/TD]

[TD]List of banks out of those in query (2) above where fine was not imposed giving details like if their reply was satisfactory etc.[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

VI. Patil

[TABLE=width: 722, align: center]

[TR]

[TD]1.[/TD]

[TD]Copies of complaints received by RBI against illegal working of the said bank, including violations of the Standing Orders of RBI as well as the provisions under Section 295 of the Companies Act, 1956.[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]2.[/TD]

[TD]Action initiated by RBI against the said bank, including all correspondence between RBI and the said bank officials.[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]3.[/TD]

[TD]Finding of the enquiry made by RBI, actions proposed and taken against the bank and its officials- official notings, decisions and final orders passed and issued.[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

 

 

VII. Shanmugam CIC/SG/A/2011/001966/16167

 

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD]1.[/TD]

[TD]Before the Orissa High Court, RBI has filed an affidavit stating that the total mark to market losses on account of currency derivatives is to the tune of more than Rs. 32,000 crores. Please give bank wise breakup of the MTM losses[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]2.[/TD]

[TD]What is the latest figure available with RBI of the amount of losses suffered by Indian business houses? Please furnish the latest figures bank wise and customer wise.[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]3.[/TD]

[TD]Whether the issue of derivative losses to Indian Exporters was discussed In any of the meetings of Governor I Deputy Governor or senior official of the Reserve Bank of India? If so please furnish the minutes of the meeting where the said issue was discussed.[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]4.[/TD]

[TD]Any other Action Taken Reports by RBI in this regard.[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

 

VIII Murlidharan CIC/SG/A/2011/002841/16732

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD]1.[/TD]

[TD]What contraventions and violations were made by SCB in respect of non-compliance of RBI instructions on derivatives, for which RBI has imposed penalty of INR 10 lakhs on SCB in exercise of its powers vested under Section 47A(1)(b) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and as stated in the RBI press release dated April 26, 2011issued by Department of Communication, RBI.[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]2.[/TD]

[TD]Please provide us the copies/details of all the complaints filed with RBI against SCB, accusing SCB of mis-selling derivative products, failure to carry out due diligence in regard to suitability of products, not verifying the underlying/adequacy of underlying and eligible limits under past performance and various other non-compliance of RBI Instructions on derivatives.

Also, please provide the above information in prescribed format.[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]3.[/TD]

[TD]Please provide us the copies of all the written replies/correspondences made by SCB with RBI and the recordings of all the oral submissions made by SCB to defend and explain the violations/contraventions made by SCB.[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]4.[/TD]

[TD]Please provide us the details/copies of the findings, recordings, enquiry reports, directive orders, file notings and/or any information on the investigations conducted by RBI against SCB in respect of non-compliance by SCB in respect of non-compliance of RBI instruction on derivatives.

Also, please provide the above information in prescribed format.[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

IX. Ashwini Dixit CIC/SG/A/2011/003293/17640

1. Action taken by RBI against scams/economic inconsistencies of United Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. (the “Bank”) along with the daily progress reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAVEENA_O

RBI has no power and authority either to amend the RTI Act or to expand the scope of exemptions, than what is laid down in RTI Act itself. RTI Act itself is a law enacted by parliament clearly stipulating the provisions for disclosure of information. While the said law in force, RBI or any such other public authority cannot lay down a Disclosure Policy under its executive power to exclude any class of information other than what is stated in the RTI Act. RBI is amenable to the law laid down by Parliament. The RTI Act do not stipulate any such provisions empowering RBI to lay down such disclosure policy. RBI exceeded by exercising authority not legally vested to it for the sole purpose of setting the provisions of RTI Act infirm. Such an action on the part of RBI is illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Act as also against the settled principles of law. Action on the part of RBI, in effect, supersede the express provisions of the Act which is not permitted in law. RBI or other PAs are required to abide the provisions of the law laid down by Parliament, here RTI Act. Any such policy cannot stand scrutiny of law.

 

The disclosure policy is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

@RAVEENA_O

 

Same same happening with:

 

Registrar of Patents (all offices located in major cities)

Registrar of Companies

National Insurance Company

State Bank of Mysore

and many others.....

 

I complained to CIC many times....but no hearing as yet for 3 of them.

 

One was returned by the Registry saying that Complaint under

Sec 18(1)(f) is not admissible since I had not filed a RTI in the first place !!!

 

I gave up after that.

 

Lets wait and see what CIC does with Mr Shailesh Gandhi's Complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAVEENA_O

It is better to file a writ petition before High Court and challenge Disclosure Policy uploaded by RBI being ultra vires with a prayer to quash the same, instead of filing RTI Application or filing complaint before CIC which has no absolute power to quash such directions, though it can direct RBI to supply information in case to case basis and recommend to RBI or Govt to cancel that Disclosure Policy.

 

SG may therefore immediately serve a Legal Notice to RBI in consultation with his counsel, with an advice to withdraw the said Disclosure Policy and remove it from its website.

Edited by RAVEENA_O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      Find here the original Supreme court judgement on Aadhaar.
      (1)        The requirement under Aadhaar Act to give one's demographic and biometric information does not violate fundamental right of privacy.
      (2)        The provisions of Aadhaar Act requiring demographic and biometric information from a resident for Aadhaar Number pass three­fold test as laid down in Puttaswamy (supra) case, hence cannot be said to be unconstitutional.
      (3)        Collection of data, its storage and use does not violate fundamental Right of Privacy.
      (4)    Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance.
      (5)        Aadhaar Act and Regulations provides protection and safety of the data received from individuals.
      (6)        Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional. The provision does not deserve to be struck down on account of denial in some cases of right to claim on account of failure of authentication.
      (7)        The State while enlivening right to food, right to shelter etc. envisaged under Article 21 cannot encroach upon the right of privacy of beneficiaries nor former can be given precedence over the latter.
      (8)        Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down.
      (9)        Section 33 cannot be said to be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be  said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3).
      (10)      Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it does not allow an individual who finds that there is a violation of Aadhaar Act to initiate any criminal process.
      (11)      Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person, in pursuant to any contract to this effect is unconstitutional and void. Thus, the last phrase in main provision of Section 57, i.e. “or any contract to this effect” is struck down.
      (12)      Section 59 has validated all actions taken by the Central Government under the notifications dated 28.01.2009    and 12.09.2009 and all actions shall be deemed to have been taken under the Aadhaar Act.
      (13)      Parental consent for providing biometric information under Regulation 3 & demographic information under Regulation 4 has to be read for enrolment of children between 5 to 18 years to uphold the constitutionality of Regulations 3 & 4 of Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.
      (14)      Rule 9 as amended by PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300A of the Constitution and Sections 3, 7 & 51 of the Aadhaar Act. Further Rule 9 as amended is not ultra vires to PMLA Act, 2002.
      (15)      Circular dated 23.03.2017 being unconstitutional is set aside.
      (16)      Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as Money Bill.  The decision of Speaker certifying the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as Money Bill is not immuned from Judicial Review.
      (17)      Section 139­AA does not breach fundamental Right of Privacy as per Privacy Judgment in Puttaswamy case.
      (18)      The Aadhaar Act does not violate the interim orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 and other Writ Petitions.

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      In this context a reference was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under: 35.....
      “It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” 

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy