Ramesh Kumar and Jainendra Singh (respondents) had asked following information from RBI under the Right to Information Act, 2005: Details of the reports pertaining to investigation and audit carried out by RBI and detail

In the given case, refusal by RBI is not tenable. The given case is similar to the case of 'Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry' [SC] Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012) along with batch of petitions [Decided on 16/12/2015]. In this case Supreme Court inter-alia held that 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 and 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 or private sector bank, and thus there is no relationship of 'trust' between them. RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large, the depositors, the country's economy and the banking sector. Thus, RBI ought to act with transparency and not hide information that might embarrass individual banks. It is duty bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act, and disclose the information sought by respondents herein. In the present case, we have to weigh between the public interest and fiduciary relationship (which is shared between the RBI and the Banks). Since, RTI Act is enacted to empower the common people, the test to determine limits of S. 8 of the RTI Act is whether giving information to the general public would be detrimental to the economic interests of the country? To what extent should the public be allowed to get information? In the context of above questions, it had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers (PIO) under the guise of one of the exceptions given under S. 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to. And in this case the RBI and the Banks have sidestepped the general public's demand to give the requisite information on the pretext of "fiduciary relationship" and "economic interest". This attitude of the RBI will only attract more suspicion and disbelief in them. RBI is a regulatory authority should work to make the banks accountable to their actions. The ideal of 'Government by people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy.