Kamal Nayan, is a Right to Information (RTI) activist. He is known for exposing various non-compliances in the financial sector. One of his applications under RTI, regarding certain information related to defaults in ban

The details sought for by Mr. Kamal Nayan in his application to RBI under the Right to Information Act were not provided on the grounds of economic interest, fiduciary relationship of RBI with the other Banks and public interest. The Supreme Court had in a similar case in Reserve Bank of India vs Jayantilal N Mistry considered RBI's refusal to provide similar information (as sought for by Kamal Nayan) to a group of applicants under the RTI. Upon refusal by RBI to provide the called for information on the grounds of being exempted under Sec 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, the applicants moved the Chief Information Commissioner for relief. The CIC ordered RBI to provide the information sought for to which an appeal was preferred by RBI to the Supreme Court. The main issue that arose for the consideration of the Court was whether all the information sought for under the Right to Information Act, 2005 can be denied by the Reserve Bank of India to the public at large on the ground of economic interest, commercial confidence, fiduciary relationship with other Bank on the one hand and the public interest on the other. If the answer to above question was in negative, then up to what extent the information can be provided under the 2005 Act. In the instant case, the RBI does not place itself in a fiduciary relationship with the financial institutions (though, in word it puts itself to be in that position) because, the reports of the inspections, statements of the bank, information related to the business obtained by the RBI are not under the pretext of confidence or trust. In this case neither the RBI nor the Banks act in the interest of each other. By attaching an additional 'fiduciary' label to the statutory duty, the Regulatory authorities have intentionally or unintentionally created an in terrorem effect. RBI is a statutory body set up by the RBI Act as India's Central Bank. It is a statutory regulatory authority to oversee the functioning of the banks and the country's banking sector. RBI has been given powers to issue any direction to the banks in public interest, in the interest of banking policy and to secure proper management of a banking company. It has several other far- reaching statutory powers. RBI is supposed to uphold public interest and not the interest of individual banks. RBI is clearly not in any fiduciary relationship with any bank. RBI has no legal duty to maximize the benefit of any public sector or private sector bank, and thus there is no relationship of 'trust' between them. RBI has to uphold public interest and not the interest of the banks. It has to act with transparency and not hide information. The baseless and unsubstantiated argument of the RBI that the disclosure would hurt the economic interest of the country was totally misconceived. It has to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and disclose the information sought for. The Supreme Court dismissed the application of RBI and ordered for information to be provided. In the instant case Kamal Nayan can move the CIC to direct the RBI to provide the requisite information citing the above precedent.