How to File RTI Against a Private Company or Bank

Kashvi Pathak has a complaint against her private bank. She files an RTI to the bank and gets a flat refusal: we are not a public authority. She is right to be confused, and there is a legal way forward.

You cannot file an RTI directly to a purely private body like a private bank, school, hospital or company, because it is not a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act 2005. But you can file the RTI to that body's PUBLIC REGULATOR and ask for the private body's records that the regulator legally holds. That route is built into the Act itself.

Short on time? Jump to the regulator-mapping table below, pick your sector, and file a Section 6 RTI with the regulator, not the private body.

Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines “information” to include “information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.” In plain words: if a government regulator can legally pull a private body's records, you can ask the regulator for those records under RTI.

Private banks file inspection data with the Reserve Bank of India. Listed companies and mutual funds file disclosures with SEBI. Insurers report to IRDAI. Private schools hold affiliation records with CBSE or the State Education Department. These regulators “hold” or “can access” that private data under their own laws, so it falls inside RTI.

The catch, set out in the same provision, is scope. Only information the regulator “normally and routinely” holds or accesses counts. You cannot force a regulator to use special investigative powers just to answer your RTI.

For private schools and hospitals the exact holdings vary by State, so phrase your request around the registration, affiliation and inspection records the authority actually keeps. See the guide to which regulator handles your sector.

1. Identify the right regulator. Match your private body to its sector regulator using the table above. Filing with the wrong authority wastes 30 days.
2. Name the exact records. Ask for specific documents the regulator holds, for example “inspection report of XYZ Bank dated DD-MM-YYYY” or “affiliation file of ABC School”. Vague requests invite a brush-off.
3. Cite Section 2(f). State that you seek information relating to a private body that the public authority can access under its governing law. This pre-empts a “we do not hold private records” refusal.
4. File the Section 6 application. Address it to the PIO of the regulator. The central fee is ₹10, but State authorities like education and health departments set their own fee, so check the portal. Keep proof of filing. You can draft it with the AI RTI drafter.
5. Wait 30 days. The PIO must reply within 30 days under Section 7. For third-party records the PIO may follow the Section 11 third-party process, which can add time.
6. Escalate if refused. File a first appeal within 30 days of the deadline or the reply. If still denied, approach the Information Commission with a second appeal.

The Supreme Court settled the core question in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, decided on 16 December 2015, reported as (2016) 3 SCC 525.

RBI had refused to disclose bank inspection reports and defaulter lists, claiming a fiduciary relationship with the banks it supervises and protection under Section 8(1)(e). The Court rejected this. It held that RBI is a statutory regulator, not in a fiduciary relationship with the banks it oversees, so Section 8(1)(e) is no blanket bar. The Court stressed that public-interest disclosure must prevail over a regulator's claim of confidentiality.

This principle reaches beyond banking. A regulator cannot routinely hide a regulated body's records behind “fiduciary” or “commercial confidence” labels when public interest favours disclosure. The Court reaffirmed the ruling in April 2021 when it dismissed RBI's recall application, so the principle stands as good law. For the standing rule of disclosure, the The RTI Playbook is a useful companion.

The regulator route is powerful but not unlimited. Keep these limits in mind.

• Records the regulator does not hold. RTI reaches only what the regulator “normally and routinely” holds or can access. You cannot make it raid the private body for fresh data.
• Genuine personal information. Section 8(1)(j) still protects the personal details of individuals, even inside a regulator's file.
• True commercial confidence. Section 8(1)(d) can still apply where disclosure would harm a third party and public interest does not outweigh it.
• Third-party records without process. For records that affect a third party the PIO must run the Section 11 procedure before disclosing.
• Practical redactions. Even after Mistry, RBI and others apply redactions, and one bank has sought a larger-bench review of bank-inspection disclosure. The principle holds, but expect some records to come back partly masked.

A purely private body that gets no substantial government finance is simply outside RTI. The regulator is your doorway, not the private body itself.

• Match your private body to its regulator using the table above.
• Write down the exact records you want, with names and dates.
• Draft a Section 6 RTI to the regulator citing Section 2(f), using the AI RTI drafter.
• Note the filing date so you can track the 30-day deadline.

No. A purely private body is not a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, unless it is substantially financed by government. You instead file the RTI with the body's public regulator, such as RBI for a private bank, and ask for the private body's records the regulator holds under Section 2(f).

Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. It defines “information” to include information relating to any private body which a public authority can access under any other law in force. So records that a regulator like SEBI or IRDAI can legally pull from a private body fall within RTI, subject to the usual exemptions.

It may try, but the Supreme Court limited that defence in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525. A regulator is not in a fiduciary relationship with the bodies it supervises, so Section 8(1)(e) is no automatic shield. Public-interest disclosure can override claims of confidentiality, though some records may still be redacted.

That can be a valid answer. RTI reaches only what the regulator normally and routinely holds or accesses, not data it would have to specially investigate. If you believe the record exists in its files, name it precisely and, if refused, file a first appeal and then a second appeal to the Information Commission.

• RTI Act 2005, Section 2(f) and Section 2(h), indiacode.nic.in and indiankanoon.org/doc/1516599/
• Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525, indiankanoon.org/doc/86904342/
• Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, recall application dismissed, 28 April 2021, indiankanoon.org/doc/13553743/
• SEBI RTI page, sebi.gov.in/rti-act-2005.html
• IRDAI Section 4(1)(b) disclosures, irdai.gov.in
• TRAI RTI page, trai.gov.in/rti

• Which regulator do I complain to: RBI, SEBI, IRDAI, TRAI hub
• AI RTI drafter tool
• The RTI Playbook