Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (Supreme Court of India, 2015-12-16) (2016) 5 SCC 136 is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), 8(2). §8(1)(e) fiduciary applies only in strict classical sense; regulator-regulated is not fiduciary. Section 8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption is confined to the strict classical fiduciary relationship — doctor-patient, lawyer-client, trustee-beneficiary, priest-penitent.

§8(1)(e) fiduciary applies only in strict classical sense; regulator-regulated is not fiduciary.

Section 8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption is confined to the strict classical fiduciary relationship — doctor-patient, lawyer-client, trustee-beneficiary, priest-penitent. The relationship between RBI and the regulated bank is not fiduciary. Bank inspection reports and willful-defaulter lists must be disclosed where public interest is involved.

• Section 8(1)(d)
• Section 8(1)(e)
• Section 8(2)

Bank inspection reports + defaulter list disclosable; PI override applies.

• Citation: (2016) 5 SCC 136
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Date: 2015-12-16
• Outcome: dismissed
• Reporter / Cause-list: (2016) 5 SCC 136

• RTI Case-Law Search — full corpus
• PIO/FAA Knowledge Base
• 10 landmark Supreme Court RTI rulings
• High Court RTI rulings
• Landmark CIC decisions
• RTI Act, 2005 — full text

Last reviewed: 23 April 2026.