Should rich individuals' banking details come under RTI, banks ask Supreme Court
SC had directed the RBI to provide information pertaining to the functioning of all banks under the RTI Act
The banks have posed a question to the Supreme Court on whether the financial transactions and bank balances of top industrialists like the Tatas, Birlas and Ambanis come under the ambit of the RTI Act. The apex court six years ago had directed the RBI to provide information pertaining to the functioning of all banks under the RTI Act.
Banks vs SC Judgment
State Bank of India (SBI) and HDFC, were represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi. The bench included Justices S Abdul Nazir and Krishna Murari. Mehta and Rohatgi argued before the bench that banking operations and financial transactions, which also include the details of individual accounts, are confidential and the Supreme Court judgment could lead confidential clauses revolving around the banking operations into serious jeopardy.
SBI and HDFC had applied for recall of the judgment. The application was dismissed in April by a bench headed by Justice LN Rao.
Mehta asked how banks possibly can breach the trust and faith of account holders because of an RTI query seeking to know the details regarding a person’s bank balance or the credit line that is being sought for a business venture, which could also be confidential.
He further said that he is not against transparency in banking operations, but questioned the need for the banks, which are mandated to maintain confidentiality, to breach the trust of customers and reveal crucial information that could potentially be misused.
Counterview
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan on the other hand said that the Supreme Court has rejected the applications that sought a recall of the old judgment that directed the RBI to divulge information regarding banking activities. He also said that through the Indian Banking Association, all the banks were a party to this case, and yet none of them, except ICICI, chose to be a part of the hearings and now they can’t claim that their voices weren’t heard.
The matter has been adjourned until Thursday.