Table of Contents
Banking, Financial, and Tax RTIs — A PIO Playbook
Core rule. RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016) 3 SCC 525 — the regulator-regulated relationship is NOT fiduciary. Inspection reports, willful-defaulter lists, risk assessments held by RBI are disclosable. But customer-level account data remains protected under §8(1)(j).
Legal framework
- §8(1)(e) — fiduciary exemption, narrowed by Jayantilal Mistry.
- §8(1)(d) — commercial confidence, for genuine trade-secret content.
- §8(1)(j) — personal information (customer-level data).
- Income Tax Act, §138 — statutory secrecy of individual tax records; interacts with §22 of RTI Act (overriding effect).
- §10 — severability; essential in mixed-customer-regulatory records.
Decision matrix
| = Element | = Default | = Reasoning |
| RBI inspection report on a named bank | Disclose | Jayantilal Mistry |
| Willful-defaulter list | Disclose | Mistry line; public interest |
| Risk-assessment report on a bank | Disclose | Mistry |
| Customer bank account details | Exempt | §8(1)(j) |
| Loan agreement of a private borrower | Exempt | §8(1)(j) + §8(1)(d) |
| Bank's own circular on interest rates | Disclose | Institutional, public |
| SEBI order on a listed company | Disclose | Final order, post-decisional |
| Stock-exchange compliance files | Mostly disclose | Institutional |
| Individual tax-return details | Exempt | IT Act §138 + §8(1)(j) |
| Tax-enforcement action against PSU | Partial | Institutional portion disclosable |
| GST registration details of businesses | Disclose | Publicly listed on GSTN |
| CBIC circular | Disclose | Institutional |
| Insurance policy holder details | Exempt | §8(1)(j) + §8(1)(e) privacy |
| IRDAI action on an insurer | Disclose | Mistry line |
Decision framework
- Step 1. Identify the holder — regulator (RBI/SEBI/IRDAI/CBIC) or regulated entity.
- Step 2. If regulator, default to disclosure of regulator's records per Mistry.
- Step 3. If regulated entity, check whether it is a “public authority” under §2(h) — PSU banks yes, private banks no (RTI doesn't apply to private banks directly).
- Step 4. Identify customer-specific elements — redact under §10 + §8(1)(j).
- Step 5. Identify trade-secret elements (proprietary risk models, bid formulas) — §8(1)(d).
- Step 6. Section 11 notice to third parties (borrowers, investors, policy-holders) where their confidentiality is implicated.
- Step 7. Speaking reply citing Mistry where fiduciary is invoked and narrowed.
Template — regulatory inspection report disclosure
The RTI seeks the inspection report of [Bank/Insurer/Exchange]. This Office holds the report in its statutory regulatory capacity. Following the Supreme Court in //RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry// (2016) 3 SCC 525, the relationship between a regulator and a regulated entity is not a fiduciary relationship. Inspection reports are therefore not exempt under Section 8(1)(e). The report is enclosed at Annexure A, with the following redactions under Section 10: - Customer-specific account data — §8(1)(j) - Proprietary risk-model formulas — §8(1)(d) First-appeal rights preserved.
Template — refusal of customer-level data
The RTI seeks [loan details / account details / insurance claim details] of Shri X. The information is personal information of a third party and is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. This Office has applied §8(2) balancing. No larger public interest has been pleaded. //Girish Deshpande// (2013) 1 SCC 212 supports the narrow reading of third-party personal financial data protection. Section 11 notice was issued to the third party; no objection to confidentiality was waived. Severability under §10: No non-exempt portion separable. First-appeal rights preserved.
Subject-wise examples
- RTI for a PSU bank's NPA status. Institutional disclosure; Mistry.
- RTI for a named borrower's default status. §8(1)(j); exempt.
- RTI for RBI's show-cause notice to a co-op bank. Disclose after the notice has been adjudicated.
- RTI for a chartered accountant's working papers held by SEBI. Working papers are fiduciary (auditor-client); but SEBI's regulatory use of them is disclosable — surgical §10 redaction needed.
- RTI for own GST registration record. Disclosable to self.
- RTI for a private bank's branch data. RTI doesn't apply to the private bank; but RBI's supervisory record does.
Case law
- RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016) 3 SCC 525 — narrow fiduciary reading; inspection reports disclosable.
- Girish Deshpande (2013) 1 SCC 212 — third-party personal data under §8(1)(j).
- CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 — four-factor fiduciary test.
Common mistakes
- Blanket §8(1)(e) refusal citing “fiduciary” — struck down by Mistry.
- Over-disclosing customer-level data.
- Mixing tax-return secrecy (IT Act §138) with generic RTI analysis — §138 has its own regime.
- Ignoring §10 severability in mixed records.
- Assuming private-bank records are outside RTI entirely — the regulator's records on the private bank are within RTI.
Pro tips
- Build a customer-data redaction filter in the regulator's RTI workflow.
- Coordinate with the enforcement wing before releasing live-investigation material.
- Use §4(1)(b) to publish frequently-asked institutional data — reduces RTI load.
- Update “willful defaulter” disclosures regularly per RBI's own circulars.
FAQs
Q1. Can a private bank reject RTI?
A private bank is not a public authority. But RBI's supervisory records about the private bank are within RTI.
Q2. Can SEBI refuse to disclose its investigation into a company?
During live investigation — §8(1)(h) applies. Post-order — disclose.
Q3. Is my own income-tax return disclosable to me?
Yes — self data to self.
Q4. Can I seek details of a taxpayer I suspect is evading tax?
Third-party tax data is exempt under IT Act §138 + §8(1)(j). Proper route is the Department's grievance portal, not RTI.
Conclusion
The banking and regulatory RTI landscape is largely settled after Mistry: regulator records disclosable, customer data protected, severability the work-horse tool. Apply the framework, and the replies hold.
Related reading
Sources
- RTI Act, 2005, §§8(1)(d), (e), (j), 10, 22
- Income Tax Act, §138
- RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016) 3 SCC 525
Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.


Discussion