Jump to content
karira

Indian Bank Association (IBA) asked to clarify if it is a PA

Recommended Posts

karira

On 28 January 2008, the CIC asked IBA to study the matter and establish if IBA is a Public Authority as defined in the RTI Act 2005.

 

Full decision of the CIC is attached.

Decision_28012008_06.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

The CIC has decided that IBA is not a Public Authority as defined in the RTI Act.

 

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/PB-06082008-10.pdf

 

With reference to the decision of this Commission dated 30.1.2008 in relation to the application of the appellant dated 21.3.2007 seeking information from Indian Banks Association, I had reserved the decision as to whether Indian Banks Association is a public authority or not with the direction to IBA to furnish various information, like the nature of the organization, how the same was being funded, the composition of its membership and its mandate for settling disputes and entering into agreement with workers etc. Accordingly, IBA has furnished certain information, like, annual report etc. From the details furnished, I find that IBA is a voluntary association of Banks. Its membership comprises of 150 member banks- public and private sector banks, foreign banks, financial institutions and cooperative banks. Only 28 out of 150 members, are public sector banks.. The entire expenses of IBA are found to be proportionally borne by the members. Even the members of the Management Committee are found to be elected representatives of the Member banks. It is also seen that on the basis of the authority given by the member banks, IBA negotiates with employee organization on behalf of the banks. Thus, I find that the Association is neither substantially funded by the government nor it is under the control of the government. Therefore, I find that IBA does not fall within the definition of a public authority as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and accordingly I hold that IBA is not a public authority.

Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandeepbaheti
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO

 

If IBA is not a PA, where is the question of giving a copy of the order to CPIO? Shows the use of copy-paste in decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
If IBA is not a PA, where is the question of giving a copy of the order to CPIO? Shows the use of copy-paste in decisions.

 

Or, no one reading even the final order before release !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjsmurthy

If IBA is not a Public Authority, why IBA before deciding abouit the wage settlement in the bi-partite agreements on wage negotiation, or any major decisions concerned with Banking industry, refer the matter to Finance Ministry? Are they obliged to finance ministry before signing the agreement, they have to discuss with the Govt.

The basic question that comes is what is the stake of Public sector banks compared to all the private sector banks put together. Th total business of all the public sector Banks put together is much higher than 50% of the total banking industry in the country. It is only because IBA is formed to have a collective thinking and dialogue with unions, decisions regarding various matters connected to banking sector, all private sector banks also feel that they are also benefited by a common approach through IBA. There is nothing wrong if the private sector banks also contribute to the pool of IBA for administrative purpose. Apart from this all the decisions taken by IBA have a direct impact on the economy and public welfare. Hence I am of the opinion it falls under Public Authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nimeshdave

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the IBA is Public Authority.

It should be decided on following points.

 

1. How much percentage of funds contribution made available to IBA by

Public Sector Banks of India ?

 

2. All organisations / associations run with the help of Government Fund

are covered under the purview of RTI Act.

 

3. All major public sector banks are controlled by Government of India.

 

4. On many occassion the IBA had sought government's approval on

issues related with the banking industry in India.

 

5. Even during and after the wage revision talks IBA seek approval from

ministry of finance.

 

6. More important question is " Whether IBA is registered body under any

act or not ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Nimesh,

 

Why don't you file a RTI application with IBA and then take up the matter in the CIC ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naavi

I have sought information from IBA about who is its CPIO and whether they are under RTI act. On receipt of reply which may be in the negative, I will see if the query can be processed further.

 

What we need to ascertain is how many of the members of IBA are themselves a PA. If they fund the activities of IBA proportionately, then why they should not be considered as majority stake holders?.

 

Naavi of naavi.org

 

Nimesh,

 

Why don't you file a RTI application with IBA and then take up the matter in the CIC ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abdul Kader Kutty

Indian banks assosciation is declared as not a public authority.whre as it is wholly or substantially financed by public sector banks owned by govt.then how can iba claim that it is not a public authority.is there any way to establish that iba is a public authority by virtue of it being substantally funded by govt owned banks.if there is a way please inform how to proceed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
Indian banks assosciation is declared as not a public authority.whre as it is wholly or substantially financed by public sector banks owned by govt.then how can iba claim that it is not a public authority.is there any way to establish that iba is a public authority by virtue of it being substantally funded by govt owned banks.if there is a way please inform how to proceed.

 

Your post has been merged with another thread on the same subject/topic. Please read the full thread above - specially post # 6.

 

Please also read some of the threads in the following search results: http://www.google.co.in/search?rlz=1C1SKPC_enIN341IN351&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=iba+site%3Awww.rtiindia.org

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abdul Kader Kutty

Has CIC already decided that the IBA is not a PA?.If so what is the next step to do in the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Yes, it has. Once again request you to please read the full thread above. Extracts from the CIC decision are given in post # 2 above.

 

The next step is as indicated in post # 7. Get the application rejected and then file a direct Complaint under Sec 18, with the CIC. Prepare your case well as to why IBA should be a public authority as defined in Sec 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

As many of us are not knowing the actual functioning of IBA, IBA is taking it granted to claim such exemptions.

It is a spokes person for entire Banking Industry.  Most of the private banks have withdrawn their membership as the wages in private sector bank are more lucrative and they vary the settlements and they have their own set of rules in promoting business.

Infact IBA enjoys patronage of public sector banks and their stake is more in IBA .  It is like America in UNO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission



      Decision No. 297/IC(A)/2006
      F. No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00663
      Dated, the 21st September, 2006



      Name of the Appellant : Shri S. Gangaiah Nayakar, 3/488, Rajapalayam Salai, T. N.C.Alangulam, District - Virudhunagar-626127
      Name of the Public Authority: Indian Overseas Bank, Customers Service Department, Central office, 763,Anna Salai, Channai-600 002. DECISION
       
      The appellant had sought certain information, which was largely furnished to him.
      The CPIO however denied the information relating to the details of loan accounts of another person and other documents submitted by him. The CPIO contented that the information sought is related to personal information, which is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act. The appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO.
      There is no denial of information to the appellant. The Banks are expected to maintain confidentiality of the accounts of its customers and that the documents submitted by its customers do not fall under public domain. Hence, exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act.
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
      Sd/-
      (Prof M. M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner
      Download the decision from Download Segment



    • armyguy
      By armyguy
      This RTI is a powerful tool to expose major policy decisions. Recently a major breakthrough happened with effort in Delhi to privatize water supply in the city.
       
      Apparently, this was a proposed World Bank funded effort. The proposal was on since the mid nineties in complete secrecy. However, some news leaked out in to the press, and an RTI petition was filed asking for the files on this process.
       
      At first there was a lot of resistance, but finally the files were made public, and the story was shocking. Apparently, the World Bank was arm twisting and almost dictating policy to the government. The process of privatization (or any government work) takes place with bids by bidding companies. There is a two layered process, where first in this case the top six companies would be selected, and then in the second round, the best among them would be selected. Here, in the first round, Pricewaterhouse-Coopers, the well known consulting firm, had a bid that came in tenth. By law, they should have been eliminated. But the world bank insisted that PWC be considered. At first the government protested, but with continuous pressure relented, and declared PWC to be selected in the top six by declaring it to be an Indian company! In the next round, again PWC fared badly, with only a 67% score, and a terrible proposal. Again the world bank pressurized the government (by asking it to remove the people who evaluated the proposal), and forced the government to declare the PWC bid as the winner. Again, the government capitulated to pressure.
       
      It wasn’t just this, but the entire process of water privatization in this proposal was rather absurd, and would have affected millions of people adversely.
       
      Bowing to public pressure (after the dealings were revealed due to the RTI petition), the government scrapped the project completely.

Announcements



×

Important Information

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