CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi- 110067
Tel No: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000739/SG/14798
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000739/SG
Relevant Facts
Emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Paramjit Kaur
H. No. 157, Sector- 16 A
Faridabad- 121 002
Respondent : Mr. B. K. Patnaik
PIO & Dy. General Manager
United Bank of India
Head Office-11,
Hemant Basu Sarani,
Kolkata - 700001
RTI Application filed on : 03/03/2010
PIO Replied on : 29/03/2010
First Appeal filed on : 19/04/2010
Order of the FAA : 06/05/2010
Second Appeal filed on : 18/02/2011
Information Sought
Information relating to the Bank Account of M/s Dina Nath Public School maintained at UBI,
Faridabad Branch which is as follows
(i) Name and addresses of the signatories who maintain the said bank account.
(ii) List of Executive Members who authorized the above signatories to open and operate the said
account.
(iii) Any other related or connected information of the appellant.
(iv)Similar information as listed in (i) to (iii) above in respect of Dina Nath Public School, B-
Block, Dabua Colony, 27 Road Faridabad.
PIO’s Reply
The information sought cannot be disclosed as the same relates to the information of other bank
account holders. Hence, the Bank is to maintain the confidentiality of such information as the same is
protected under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Grounds of First Appeal
The information sought is not protected under any fiduciary relationship or personal information.
Hence, the same should be provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority
The reply sent by the PIO is upheld and the appeal is disposed off. The banks are under an obligation
to maintain secrecy about the transactions and other details furnished by the customers. Information
available to the bank is under fiduciary relationship and no public interest is involved in the matter.
Grounds of Second Appeal
Information sought has not been provided by saying that it is protected under Section 8 (1) (e) & (j).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. B. K. Patnaik, PIO & Dy. General Manager; Manish Bhatt, Manager and Mr. R.
Roi, Manager on video conference from NIC_Kolkata Studio;
The appellant had sought information about a customer of the bank. The Bank has denied the
information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act
exempts information which is held in a fiduciary capacity by the public authority.
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure ‘information available to a person in his
fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants
the disclosure of such information;’
The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to
someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter’s benefit within the scope of that
relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those
that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another
important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of
information who must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer
chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for
the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the
information for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships
usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided
in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to
have been given in a fiduciary relationship.
In the instant case very clearly a fiduciary relationship exists, since customers of a Bank come to it
because of the implicit trust they have; and they provide information to the Bank for their own benefit.
Customers also have a choice of which bank they wish to approach. Hence unless a large public
interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information sought by the Appellant is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the
RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
22 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (BK))