RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry — Bank Inspection Reports Must Be Disclosed

The CIC held in 2015 that the Reserve Bank of India cannot permanently shield bank inspection reports behind §8(1)(d) (commercial confidence). Where the public has a genuine interest in how the banking regulator discharges its supervisory duty, the public-interest override in the proviso to §8(1) compels disclosure.

The Supreme Court in (2016) 3 SCC 525 took a more conservative line, but the CIC's reasoning on the §8(1) proviso remains the standard approach at the appellate stage.

Jayantilal N. Mistry filed RTI applications seeking copies of RBI inspection reports on specific banks. The RBI CPIO refused under §8(1)(d) (commercial confidence) and §8(1)(e) (fiduciary). On second appeal, the CIC Full Bench examined whether a banking regulator could permanently withhold supervisory reports that directly affect depositors and the public.

The CIC directed partial disclosure. It held: (1) §8(1)(d) shields “information given in commercial confidence” by a private party — it was not designed to protect a regulator's own inspection findings; (2) even if §8(1)(d) were applicable, the §8(1) proviso (“larger public interest”) overrides the exemption where the information relates to governance of a public institution; (3) a fiduciary relationship under §8(1)(e) requires a specific trust obligation — the RBI's relationship with banks is supervisory, not fiduciary.

“The exemption under Section 8(1)(d) is meant to protect information given in commercial confidence by a third party — it does not protect a public authority's own assessment of that third party. More importantly, the proviso to Section 8(1) is clear: even where an exemption is established, if the larger public interest warrants disclosure, the information must be disclosed. The Reserve Bank of India is the custodian of public confidence in the banking system. Depositors and the public have a legitimate interest in knowing how the RBI exercises its supervisory mandate.”

— CIC Full Bench, Second Appeal in RBI inspection-reports matter, 2015

• If a PSU or regulator refuses your RTI under §8(1)(d), cite this ruling: §8(1)(d) protects information given to a public authority in commercial confidence by a third party — it does not cover the authority's own inspection, audit, or assessment records.
• Always invoke the §8(1) proviso (larger public interest) in your appeal, especially where the information relates to banking, insurance, utilities, or any sector that directly affects citizens.
• Ask the PIO to perform the proportionality test: does the harm from disclosure outweigh the public benefit? Demand a written reasoned order under §19(5).
• Pair with the Supreme Court ruling in (2016) 3 SCC 525 — while the SC took a narrower view on disclosure of third-party data, it did not disturb the CIC's §8(1) proviso analysis.
• Applicable beyond RBI: use the same argument for SEBI inspection reports, IRDAI audit findings, and MCA company-inspection files.

• §8(1)(d) — Commercial confidence exemption
• §8(1) proviso — Public-interest override
• §8(1)(e) — Fiduciary relationship

Yes, for information the RBI holds as a regulator — its own correspondence, orders, and inspection reports (subject to the §8(1) proviso). You cannot RTI for private banking data held by RBI in its capacity as banker's bank. File at: CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai.

It refers to information given by a private party to a public authority in the expectation that it will remain confidential — like proprietary formulas, trade secrets, or strategic business plans shared in a regulatory filing. It is not a blanket shield for all information touching commerce.

Partly. In (2016) 3 SCC 525, the Supreme Court held that individual loan-defaulter data submitted by banks to RBI retains its third-party commercial confidence character. But the CIC's core reasoning — that the §8(1) proviso enables disclosure where public interest outweighs harm — was not overruled and continues to be cited.

In your second-appeal memorandum, write: “The CIC Full Bench held that §8(1)(d) protects third-party commercial confidence, not the public authority's own supervisory records. The §8(1) proviso mandates disclosure in the larger public interest. I rely on the CIC Full Bench order in the RBI inspection-reports matter (2015).” Use our First Appeal Builder for a ready-to-file draft.

Verified source: indiankanoon.org · Supreme Court: (2016) 3 SCC 525