- NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
- shows RTI
- RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
- 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
- The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
- Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
- Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
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.
(Prof M. M. Ansari)
Download the decision from Download Segment
RBI sought exclusion from RTI: Govt. doesnot finance us!
The Right to Information Act (RTI) covers all bodies owned, controlled or â€˜substantially financedâ€™ by the government. Which should be clear enough, but the Reserve Bank of India didnâ€™t think so. It sought exclusion from the scanner, contending, â€œWe do not come under the Act, as we are the sole financier of the government; the government does not finance us!â€
In response, the Central Information Commission has firmly put the Bank in its place by reminding it that RBI was constituted by an Act of Parliament and was therefore squarely within the lawâ€™s purview.