Banking & Insurance RTI — PSU bank / LIC records (2026)

Short version. When a public-sector bank or insurer stalls — a claim parked for months, a loan rejected with no reason, a PPF/FPF record gone quiet — the RTI Act reaches the file directly: ₹10, 30 days, and a first appeal that the bank's own senior officer must answer. For regulator-level records (RBI's inspection findings of a bank, IRDAI's action on an insurer), the RTI goes to the regulator itself. And RTI runs parallel to the ombudsman routes — one does not cancel the other.

The line is government control or substantial financing (§2(h) RTI Act), not “regulated by RBI”. Every entity above is RBI- or IRDAI-regulated; only the government-owned ones are public authorities.

For years banks refused RTI requests claiming customer records were held in a fiduciary relationship under §8(1)(e). In Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (Supreme Court, 16 December 2015) that defence was confined to its strict classical sense — a relationship of confidence where the customer entrusts information for a specific purpose. On that reading:

• RBI's inspection reports of banks — disclosable (with §10 severance of genuinely exempt bits).
• Defaulter lists banks report to RBI — disclosable.
• Your own loan/claim file, notings and rejection reasoning — squarely disclosable to you.
• Other customers' data — still protected, by §8(1)(j) privacy and §8(1)(e) properly applied.

So the classic bank rejection — “we cannot share this, fiduciary” — is a defence the Supreme Court has already dismantled. Quote the case name in your first appeal; it settles most refusals.

• Loan rejected, no reason given → the reason recorded, the sanctioning officer's notings, and the score-sheet/conclusions on your application.
• Claim (LIC/policies) delayed → claim file status, documents awaited and from whom, the officer holding the file, and the Citizen Charter timeline it has crossed.
• Pension/PPF/Senior Citizen Scheme records → the ledger extracts and the date-wise credit entries.
• *Your own records need no Mistry citation — ask plainly; refusal of your own file is indefensible. * Bank's conduct towards you (charges, recovery behaviour) → the internal circulars applied, the recovery agent's appointment/engagement records for your account. * A bank's overall safety (before large deposits) → ask RBI for the latest inspection report conclusions, per Mistry. ===== Copy-ready RTI — to the bank / insurer ===== <code> To, The Public Information Officer, [Bank / LIC / Insurer office name + address] Subject: Application under Section 6(1), RTI Act 2005 — my account/claim file 1. Status and current stage of my [loan / claim / application] no. [NUMBER] dated [DATE]. 2. The reason for the delay beyond the Citizen Charter timeline, as recorded in writing. 3. Photocopies of the file notings (daily movement) on my application. 4. The list of documents pending, and from whom each is pending. 5. The name, designation and phone of the Branch Head and the Zonal Office grievance officer. 6. Action taken on my earlier complaint no. [NUMBER] dated [DATE]. Fee of ₹10 paid by [IPO / DD / online]. Reply within 30 days per Section 7(1). [Name + address + phone + date + signature] </code> ===== Copy-ready RTI — to RBI (inspection records) ===== <code> To, The CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, [Regional office / Central Office] Subject: Application under Section 6(1), RTI Act 2005 — inspection report Please provide the conclusions/observations of RBI's last [two] inspection report(s) of [Bank name], under Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, with third-party and commercially confidential portions severed under Section 10 of the RTI Act. Fee of ₹10 by [IPO/DD/online]. [Name + address + date] </code> File at RBI's own RTI cell (rbia.rbi.org.in online or by post to its Central Office at Fort, Mumbai / regional office) — not at the bank. ===== The two clocks: RTI and the ombudsmen ===== * RTI: Day 30 reply → first appeal within 30 days (the bank's FAA, usually a senior official above the PIO) → second appeal to CIC after the FAA window. * RBI Ombudsman (banks, NBFCs, payment system participants): under the Reserve Bank – Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2026, in force from 1 July 2026 — file at cms.rbi.org.in after first complaining to the bank and waiting 30 days. * IRDAI route (insurance): complain to the insurer's grievance officer, escalate on Bima Bharat — the ombudsman there takes complaints the insurer has not resolved in 30 days. Run them in parallel: the ombudsman orders redress (pay/reinstate), the RTI extracts the paper trail that makes redress undeniable. Neither route waives the other. ===== Case-law anchors ===== * Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (SC, 16 Dec 2015) — fiduciary defence confined to strict classical sense; inspection reports and defaulter lists disclosable; severance under §10. * Bhagat Singh v. Central Information Commission (Delhi HC, 2007) — refusals must carry speaking reasons; a bare “exempt” is itself a violation. ===== Common mistakes ===== * Asking for other customers' records — blocked by §8(1)(j); ask for yours, and for aggregate/anonymised data instead. * Filing RTI at the head office for a branch matter — file where the file sits; §6(3) transfer costs you 5 days. * Using RTI as the complaint itself — RTI gets records; the ombudsman gets action. Do both. * Treating a private bank's refusal as an RTI violation — it never was an RTI matter; the ombudsman is your only statutory lever there. ===== FAQs ===== ==== Is HDFC / ICICI / Axis a public authority under RTI? ==== No. Private banks are regulated by RBI but not controlled by government — RTI does not apply. Their regulator, the RBI, is a public authority: you can RTI RBI about** them (complaint-handling, penalties imposed, inspection conclusions) even though you cannot RTI them.

Yes. The reasoning and score-sheet on your own application are your file's records; after Mistry, the fiduciary excuse does not cover them.

The ombudsman's decisions are binding on the insurer within the award's terms (with an appeal route); RTI replies are not awards — they are evidence.

Ask RBI directly with the Mistry template above; expect severance under §10, not refusal.

• Banking RTI — PIO playbook
• Hospital negligence RTI
• File RTI online — 12 steps
• How to file an RTI in India — the definitive 2026 guide
• RTI — 25 questions answered
• The RTI Playbook book

• RTI Act 2005 — §§2(h), 6(1), 6(3), 7(1), 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j), 10, 19.
• Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry — Supreme Court, 16 December 2015.
• Bhagat Singh v. CIC — Delhi High Court, 2007.
• Banking Regulation Act 1949, §35 (RBI inspection).
• Reserve Bank – Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2026 (in force 1 July 2026) — cms.rbi.org.in.
• IRDAI grievance redressal — Bima Bharat portal.

Last reviewed: 27 August 2026. Jayantilal Mistry holding and Bhagat Singh citation re-verified this run against the case text and our case-law database; ombudsman position updated to RB-IOS 2026 (in force 1 July 2026) replacing the 2021 Scheme. Broken meta tail and truncated intro block from the old page removed.