Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016)

Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525.
Bench: Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Justice C. Nagappan.
Date of judgment: 16 December 2015 (reported 2016).

A series of RTI applications were filed before the Reserve Bank of India seeking:

• Inspection reports of cooperative banks and scheduled commercial banks.
• Action-taken reports on irregularities flagged during inspection.
• Details of penalties and censures issued against regulated entities.

The RBI refused disclosure on three grounds:

1. Section 8(1)(a) — sovereignty and economic interests of the State.
2. Section 8(1)(d) — commercial confidence of the regulated banks.
3. Section 8(1)(e) — information held in a fiduciary relationship between the RBI and the banks it supervises.

The Central Information Commission directed disclosure. The RBI appealed through the High Court and reached the Supreme Court.

The Court held that a regulator is not a fiduciary of the entity it regulates. The trust element that defines a fiduciary relationship — a duty to act in the other party's interest — is absent between the RBI and the banks it supervises. The RBI's duty is to the banking system and the public at large, not to the individual bank. Therefore, Section 8(1)(e) does not apply.

The Court rejected the vague invocation of “sovereignty and economic interests” as a generic shield. The RBI must show a specific and substantial harm to economic interests before relying on this ground. Routine inspection reports do not meet that bar.

The Court recognised that some portions of inspection reports contain genuinely commercial confidential data of the regulated bank. The remedy is Section 10 severance — redact those specific portions and release the rest. Not a blanket refusal.

• Regulators generally — including RBI, SEBI, IRDAI, PFRDA, TRAI — cannot hide behind a blanket “fiduciary” shield. Supervisory records of regulated entities are broadly disclosable.
• Narrow reading of Section 8(1)(e) — the fiduciary must owe a specific duty to the other party, not merely hold information about them. See Fiduciary relationship.
• Section 10 severance — the standard remedy where a record mixes exempt and non-exempt portions.

• The RTI Act, 2005 — current text. Section 8(1)(e).
• Fiduciary relationship under RTI.
• Grounds for rejection — concept note.
• Severability — Section 10.
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — file notings.
• Thalappalam v. Kerala (2013) — “substantially financed”.
• Case law library.

Jayantilal Mistry engages Section 8(1)(e), which was not amended by the DPDP Rules, 2025. The judgment remains fully good law. The reasoning on public-interest override (Section 8(2)) continues to operate for banking-supervision disclosures.

1. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), 8(2), 10.
2. Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525.

Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.