01Facts
The Respondent No. 3 filed an RTI application on 30.10.2017 with the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Petitioner Bank seeking details regarding farmers granted loans under the Kisan Credit Card (KCC) Scheme from January 2007 to late 2017.
p. 3Specifically, information was sought regarding names, addresses, loan amounts, land records (Jamabandi), insurance collections, repayment details, and field inspection reports.
pp. 3-4The Bank denied the information, claiming exemption under Sections 8(1)(d), (e), and (j) of the RTI Act, asserting a duty of secrecy regarding customer affairs.
p. 5Following an appeal to the Chief Information Officer, which partially granted information but excluded Queries 3 and 6, the Respondent No. 3 approached the Assam Information Commission.
p. 5The Commission, on 19.05.2018, ordered the Bank to allow inspection of voluminous records for Query 1 and directed the Bank to either justify the exemption for Queries 3 and 6 in writing or provide the data.
pp. 5-6The Bank challenged this order via a writ petition.
p. 702Issues
i.1. Whether the information regarding KCC loan beneficiaries and their land records held by a public sector bank is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act
p. 7 / para 11ii.2. Whether the State Information Commission committed a jurisdictional error by directing the Bank to justify exemptions for specific queries before final disclosure
p. 8 / para 1203Law Applied
The Court applied the Right to Information Act, 2005, specifically Sections 8(1)(d), (e), and (j) concerning exemptions for commercial confidence, fiduciary relationships, and personal privacy.
p. 5The Court balanced these against the principle of public interest inherent in the functioning of public sector banks.
p. 7The case also touched upon the nature of public records under the RTI Act, distinguishing between private documents and public documents like Jamabandis (land records) and land revenue receipts.
p. 704Reasoning
The Court observed that the Petitioner is a public bank, not a private entity, and the loans in question were disbursed through public funds under a government scheme (KCC).
p. 7Regarding Query 1, the Court held that land records like Jamabandis and revenue receipts are essentially public documents; thus, providing the names of beneficiaries does not constitute a violation of privacy or commercial secrecy.
p. 7It reasoned that there is a significant "public interest" in disclosing how such loans are disbursed.
p. 7Regarding Queries 3 (loan repayment/additional loan info) and 6 (field inspection reports), the Court noted that the Commission had not issued a blanket order to disclose but had reasonably granted the Bank "liberty to provide justification" for non-disclosure.
p. 8The Court found that the Bank’s decision to challenge the order rather than providing the required justification was unwarranted.
p. 805Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Commission's order dated 19.05.2018.
p. 8It held that the direction for inspection of voluminous records for Query 1 was proper and that there was no jurisdictional error in requiring the Bank to justify exemptions for Queries 3 and 6.
pp. 7-8The interim stay was vacated, and the Bank was directed to comply with the Commission's directives.
p. 8Original Court PDF
Assam Gramin Vikash BankvsThe Assam Information Commission And 2 Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
