welcome to Fiduciary Relationship | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
16	CIC/SH/A/2015/001619 (162.58 KB)	05 Dec, 2016	Rajvir Singh vs IDBI Bank Limited, Mumbai Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary. The Commission held that the bank holds the information concerning the accounts of its customers in a fiduciary capacity. Therefore, such information is exempted from disclosure to third parties under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, in the absence of a finding of larger public interest. The above position does not change merely because an account belongs to an institution and not to an individual. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of the information to him. As stated by the bank, they would be willing to change the names of authorised signatories only if the society provides to them a resolution to that effect, passed as per the relevant rules and regulations applicable to such societies.
17	CIC/MP/A/2016/001307 (23.80 KB)	29 Nov, 2016	Y. Akbar Ahmed v State Bank of India, Chennai Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship — Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information — the Commission held that no commercial confidence is involved in giving the rent details and the period of lease, the documents relating to lease deed/sale deed/rent deed reported to containing personal information of the landlord could not be provided to him in view exemption provided u/ s 8(I)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA to that extent.
18	CIC/MP/A/2016/001048 (25.67 KB)	29 Nov, 2016	Bachitter Singh vs Punjab National Bank, Sirhind Road Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the CPIO has incorrectly applied the provisions of the RTI Act and denied the information as sought by the appellant. The Commission is of the view that as the information sought by the appellant relates to another branch and seems to be of voluminous nature, the CPIO should have provided a clear response to that effect. The CPIO could have either transferred the present application to the BC): Ahmedgarh Mandi under section 6(3) of the RTI Act for direct response to the appellant, or intimated the appellant about their inability to provide voluminous information as per section 7(9) of the RTI Act. However, keeping the spirit of the RTI Act in view, the Commission directed the CPIO to allow inspection of (i) bills of purchases and sale, and vouchers with regard to computer and furniture (last three months); and (ii) provide details of NPA cases wherein action has been already initiated under the SARFAESI Act (2015-2016).
19	CIC/MP/A/2016/001673 (25.82 KB)	28 Nov, 2016	Vijay Bahadur Gaur vs New India Assurance Co Ltd., Jaipur Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 8(I)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the CPIO/FAA had appropriately responded to in the matter in denying the information u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The personal file of the employees may contain a lot of information which is essentially personal in nature, e.g. the details of their family members and their age, reasons and the kind of leave taken, increment, etc. if withheld and severing such information from the personal file would be time consuming. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.
20	CIC/MP/C/2016/000106 (37.90 KB)	28 Oct, 2016	Hemant Singhal vs India Security Press, Nashik Road Section 8(l)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission cautions the CPIO for providing a cryptic response to the complainant without giving justification on the exemptions claimed under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission observes that the information as sought by the complainant pertained to third parties and cannot be provided under the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
21	CIC/MP/A/2016/000850 (32.86 KB)	27 Oct, 2016	J. Aggarwal vs Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Doctor Patient Relationship The Commission held that the information sought relates to pensioners and is third party information held by the bank in its fiduciary capacity, therefore, is not disclosable u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The public authority is also not obligated to collect or collate non-available information for the appellant's perusal. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondents.
22	CIC/CC/A/2016/000824 (68.37 KB)	21 Oct, 2016	Vishram Talgaonkar Vs. High Court of Bombay Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Confidentiality of any examination by Bombay High Court Whether information relating to, examination process is exempted. The Commission held that the sought for information should have been provided to the appellant. The Commission relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No. 7526/2009] Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. Decision dated August 9, 2011, wherein, it was held that "An examining body does not hold the evaluated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship. Not being information available to an examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption under section 8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer-books. As no other exemption under section 8 is available in respect of evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit inspection sought by the examinees." The Commission directed the respondent to provide to the appellant, information in context of his RTI application.
23	CIC/RM/A/2014/003823/SD (95.59 KB)	05 Sep, 2016	Lt. Col. Naresh Kaushik Vs. HQ 1 Corps Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that no specific reasoning has been provided for invoking section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The CPIO has failed to explain how the file noting(s) on the Appellant's Court of Inquiry proceedings are held in a fiduciary capacity as per section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Commission rejected the exemption of section 8(1) (e) claimed by the CPIO and directed him to provide the information to the Appellant.
24	CIC/KY/A/2015/000029-YA (165.28 KB)	01 Sep, 2016	Shri R K Jain Vs. CPIO, HUDCO Limited Delhi The appellant filed RTI application and sought information regarding the renting out of the office premises to the CIC at August KrantiBhawan and also sought copy of the lease deed. The Commission upheld the decision of the CPIO claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act as no wider public interest is demonstrated by the appellant warranting disclosure of the information sought. Section 8(1)(e)
25	CIC/RM/A/2014/003059 (94.61 KB)	11 Aug, 2016	Vinay Kumar Vs. Sainik School Ghorakhal, Uttarakhand Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship — Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information — the Commission held that the CPIO denied disclosure of the answer scripts and question booklet of the Appellant's son under the exemption clauses of Section 8 without any reasonable application of his mind. The Appellant in this case is seeking Information regarding his own son who is a minor, in the capacity of his legal natural guardian. The CPIO should have provided the information as sought.
26	CIC/BS/A/2015/901101/10981 (53.36 KB)	03 Aug, 2016	Suhas Lakhande Vs. EPFO, Pune Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information the Commission held that accounts of subscribers maintained by EPFO are held under fiduciary relationship and information relating to such accounts is personal in nature and exempt from disclosure to third party under sections 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act unless the seeker of information is able to show larger public interest to justify the disclosure.
27	CIC/SH/A/2015/001982 CIC/SH/A/2016/000333 (319.65 KB)	28 Jul, 2016	Inderjit Singh Suri vs Dena Bank, New Delhi Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship The Commission held that the CPIO was wrong in stating that the queries of the Appellant did not come under the purview of the RTI Act. Further, just because the Appellant is a dismissed employee, he is not debarred from seeking information under the RTI Act to defend his rights, including to use such information in courts. The CPIO is directed to respond to the two queries of the Appellant mentioned above, based on the relevant rules and regulations of the bank. In case the said rules do not cover the specific issues raised by the Appellant, the CPIO should state so and provide him a certified copy of the bank's rules applicable in respect of admissibility of terminal benefits in the case of dismissed employees / employees who have undergone prosecution. Legal opinion, copies of which have been sought by the Appellant, is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act because of the fiduciary relationship between the bank and its lawyers. However, since the fee paid to the lawyers comes from public funds, there is no ground not to disclose the information concerning the same. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant the information concerning the lawyers' fee sought by him in the RTI application.
28	CIC/MP/A/2013/000044/SH (337.93 KB)	28 Jul, 2016	S.S. Vohra vs Indian Bank, Chennai & Anr. Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship The Commission held that there is no fiduciary relationship between the Respondent Bank and the RBI, the Respondents do not need any consent from the RBI to part with the information sought by the Appellant. The CPIO of the Respondent Bank is directed to furnish to the Appellant after severing details of customer related information and particulars of informers/whistle blowers/ sources of information, if any, contained in the information to be furnished.
29	CIC/SH/A/2015/000904 (219.92 KB)	13 Jul, 2016	M. Venugopala Chary Vs. Canara Bank, Hyderabad Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship The Commission held that the information sought at point No. I is regarding departmental proceedings conducted by the bank against its officials. Such information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. At points No. 2 and 3, the Appellant has sought copies of the concurrent audit reports and periodical returns of the branch. These documents would contain a good deal of information concerning the customers of the bank, which is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) and, in the case of individual account holders, also under section 8(1) (j). The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of the information to him. The pending prosecution against him cannot become the ground of larger public interest.
30	CIC/MP/A/2016/000304 (88.78 KB)	05 Jul, 2016	Akash Madhukar Pate vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai Section 8(1) (e) Fiduciary Relationship. The appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai seeking information in respect of transferees and tenement/chawl numbers pertaining to tenements/chawls situated at New Vallabh Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai in respect of which tenancies had been transferred by LIC of India since its taking possession of the said tenements/chawls from M/S Asian Assurance Co. Ltd., till 31st March, 2015. The Commission accepted the submissions of the respondents and held that the information as sought by the appellant pertained to third party and could not be provided to the appellant under the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which warrants no larger public activity or interest.

16

CIC/SH/A/2015/001619
(162.58 KB) pdf icon

05 Dec, 2016

Rajvir Singh vs IDBI Bank Limited, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary.

The Commission held that the bank holds the information concerning the accounts of its customers in a fiduciary capacity. Therefore, such information is exempted from disclosure to third parties under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, in the absence of a finding of larger public interest. The above position does not change merely because an account belongs to an institution and not to an individual. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of the information to him. As stated by the bank, they would be willing to change the names of authorised signatories only if the society provides to them a resolution to that effect, passed as per the relevant rules and regulations applicable to such societies.

17

CIC/MP/A/2016/001307
(23.80 KB) pdf icon

29 Nov, 2016

Y. Akbar Ahmed v State Bank of India, Chennai

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship — Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information — the Commission held that no commercial confidence is involved in giving the rent details and the period of lease, the documents relating to lease deed/sale deed/rent deed reported to containing personal information of the landlord could not be provided to him in view exemption provided u/ s 8(I)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA to that extent.

18

CIC/MP/A/2016/001048
(25.67 KB) pdf icon

29 Nov, 2016

Bachitter Singh vs Punjab National Bank, Sirhind Road

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the CPIO has incorrectly applied the provisions of the RTI Act and denied the information as sought by the appellant. The Commission is of the view that as the information sought by the appellant relates to another branch and seems to be of voluminous nature, the CPIO should have provided a clear response to that effect. The CPIO could have either transferred the present application to the BC): Ahmedgarh Mandi under section 6(3) of the RTI Act for direct response to the appellant, or intimated the appellant about their inability to provide voluminous information as per section 7(9) of the RTI Act.

However, keeping the spirit of the RTI Act in view, the Commission directed the CPIO to allow inspection of (i) bills of purchases and sale, and vouchers with regard to computer and furniture (last three months); and (ii) provide details of NPA cases wherein action has been already initiated under the SARFAESI Act (2015-2016).

19

CIC/MP/A/2016/001673
(25.82 KB) pdf icon

28 Nov, 2016

Vijay Bahadur Gaur vs New India Assurance Co Ltd., Jaipur

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 8(I)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the CPIO/FAA had appropriately responded to in the matter in denying the information u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The personal file of the employees may contain a lot of information which is essentially personal in nature, e.g. the details of their family members and their age, reasons and the kind of leave taken, increment, etc. if withheld and severing such information from the personal file would be time consuming. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.

20

CIC/MP/C/2016/000106
(37.90 KB) pdf icon

28 Oct, 2016

Hemant Singhal vs India Security Press, Nashik Road

Section 8(l)(e) Fiduciary Relationship.

The Commission cautions the CPIO for providing a cryptic response to the complainant without giving justification on the exemptions claimed under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

The Commission observes that the information as sought by the complainant pertained to third parties and cannot be provided under the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

21

CIC/MP/A/2016/000850
(32.86 KB) pdf icon

27 Oct, 2016

J. Aggarwal vs Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Doctor Patient Relationship

The Commission held that the information sought relates to pensioners and is third party information held by the bank in its fiduciary capacity, therefore, is not disclosable u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The public authority is also not obligated to collect or collate non-available information for the appellant's perusal. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondents.

22

CIC/CC/A/2016/000824
(68.37 KB) pdf icon

21 Oct, 2016

Vishram Talgaonkar Vs. High Court of Bombay

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Confidentiality of any examination by Bombay High Court Whether information relating to, examination process is exempted. The Commission held that the sought for information should have been provided to the appellant. The Commission relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No. 7526/2009] Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. Decision dated August 9, 2011, wherein, it was held that "An examining body does not hold the evaluated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship. Not being information available to an examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption under section 8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer-books. As no other exemption under section 8 is available in respect of evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit inspection sought by the examinees." The Commission directed the respondent to provide to the appellant, information in context of his RTI application.

23

CIC/RM/A/2014/003823/SD
(95.59 KB) pdf icon

05 Sep, 2016

Lt. Col. Naresh Kaushik Vs. HQ 1 Corps

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that no specific reasoning has been provided for invoking section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The CPIO has failed to explain how the file noting(s) on the Appellant's Court of Inquiry proceedings are held in a fiduciary capacity as per section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Commission rejected the exemption of section 8(1) (e) claimed by the CPIO and directed him to provide the information to the Appellant.

24

CIC/KY/A/2015/000029-YA
(165.28 KB) pdf icon

01 Sep, 2016

Shri R K Jain Vs. CPIO, HUDCO Limited Delhi

The appellant filed RTI application and sought information regarding the renting out of the office premises to the CIC at August KrantiBhawan and also sought copy of the lease deed. The Commission upheld the decision of the CPIO claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act as no wider public interest is demonstrated by the appellant warranting disclosure of the information sought. Section 8(1)(e)

25

CIC/RM/A/2014/003059
(94.61 KB) pdf icon

11 Aug, 2016

Vinay Kumar Vs. Sainik School Ghorakhal, Uttarakhand

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship — Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information — the Commission held that the CPIO denied disclosure of the answer scripts and question booklet of the Appellant's son under the exemption clauses of Section 8 without any reasonable application of his mind. The Appellant in this case is seeking Information regarding his own son who is a minor, in the capacity of his legal natural guardian. The CPIO should have provided the information as sought.

26

CIC/BS/A/2015/901101/10981
(53.36 KB) pdf icon

03 Aug, 2016

Suhas Lakhande Vs. EPFO, Pune

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information the Commission held that accounts of subscribers maintained by EPFO are held under fiduciary relationship and information relating to such accounts is personal in nature and exempt from disclosure to third party under sections 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act unless the seeker of information is able to show larger public interest to justify the disclosure.

27

CIC/SH/A/2015/001982 CIC/SH/A/2016/000333
(319.65 KB) pdf icon

28 Jul, 2016

Inderjit Singh Suri vs Dena Bank, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship

The Commission held that the CPIO was wrong in stating that the queries of the Appellant did not come under the purview of the RTI Act. Further, just because the Appellant is a dismissed employee, he is not debarred from seeking information under the RTI Act to defend his rights, including to use such information in courts. The CPIO is directed to respond to the two queries of the Appellant mentioned above, based on the relevant rules and regulations of the bank. In case the said rules do not cover the specific issues raised by the Appellant, the CPIO should state so and provide him a certified copy of the bank's rules applicable in respect of admissibility of terminal benefits in the case of dismissed employees / employees who have undergone prosecution. Legal opinion, copies of which have been sought by the Appellant, is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act because of the fiduciary relationship between the bank and its lawyers. However, since the fee paid to the lawyers comes from public funds, there is no ground not to disclose the information concerning the same. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant the information concerning the lawyers' fee sought by him in the RTI application.

28

CIC/MP/A/2013/000044/SH
(337.93 KB) pdf icon

28 Jul, 2016

S.S. Vohra vs Indian Bank, Chennai & Anr.

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship

The Commission held that there is no fiduciary relationship between the Respondent Bank and the RBI, the Respondents do not need any consent from the RBI to part with the information sought by the Appellant.

The CPIO of the Respondent Bank is directed to furnish to the Appellant after severing details of customer related information and particulars of informers/whistle blowers/ sources of information, if any, contained in the information to be furnished.

29

CIC/SH/A/2015/000904
(219.92 KB) pdf icon

13 Jul, 2016

M. Venugopala Chary Vs. Canara Bank, Hyderabad

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship

The Commission held that the information sought at point No. I is regarding departmental proceedings conducted by the bank against its officials. Such information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. At points No. 2 and 3, the Appellant has sought copies of the concurrent audit reports and periodical returns of the branch. These documents would contain a good deal of information concerning the customers of the bank, which is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) and, in the case of individual account holders, also under section 8(1) (j). The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of the information to him. The pending prosecution against him cannot become the ground of larger public interest.

30

CIC/MP/A/2016/000304
(88.78 KB) pdf icon

05 Jul, 2016

Akash Madhukar Pate vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai

Section 8(1) (e) Fiduciary Relationship.

The appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai seeking information in respect of transferees and tenement/chawl numbers pertaining to tenements/chawls situated at New Vallabh Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai in respect of which tenancies had been transferred by LIC of India since its taking possession of the said tenements/chawls from M/S Asian Assurance Co. Ltd., till 31st March, 2015.

The Commission accepted the submissions of the respondents and held that the information as sought by the appellant pertained to third party and could not be provided to the appellant under the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which warrants no larger public activity or interest.