A growing standoff has emerged between the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and several major lenders over the disclosure of sensitive supervisory information, including details of non-performing assets (NPAs), lists of wilful defaulters, penalties and inspection reports, with the matter now before the country’s top transparency watchdog.
Banks such as Bank of Baroda, RBL Bank, Yes Bank and State Bank of India have approached the Central Information Commission (CIC), opposing the RBI’s view that such information is “liable to be disclosed” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
RTI Applications Trigger Dispute
The dispute stems from multiple RTI applications filed by citizens seeking details such as the top 100 NPAs of Yes Bank, wilful defaulters, RBI inspection reports of SBI and RBL Bank, and records linked to monetary penalties imposed on Bank of Baroda following statutory inspections. While the RBI supported disclosure, citing legal precedent, the banks argued that releasing such information could harm their commercial interests and competitive position.
In a series of interim orders, Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi referred the cases to a larger bench of the CIC, noting that similar disputes had earlier been heard by a two-member bench. Until a final ruling is delivered, disclosure of the contested information has been stayed.
RBI’s Legal Position
At the heart of the debate is the RBI’s reliance on the landmark Supreme Court of India judgment in the Jayantilal N. Mistry case, which held that RBI inspection reports and related supervisory material fall within the ambit of the RTI Act and must be disclosed in the larger public interest. The central bank has maintained that it does not share a fiduciary relationship with regulated banks that would exempt such information from transparency norms.
In its submissions, the RBI said it had already severed portions of information exempt under Sections 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, which deal with commercial confidence, fiduciary relationships and personal information. Beyond these limited exemptions, the central bank argued, the remaining records must be made public.
Bank of Baroda Penalty Case
Bank of Baroda, in one case, challenged the RBI’s decision to disclose documents related to a ₹4.34 crore penalty imposed after statutory inspection findings. The bank claimed the information was confidential and sensitive. The RBI rejected the objection, stating that arguments about potential adverse impact on business or marketability were “not tenable”. BoB has since moved the Supreme Court, seeking reconsideration of the Jayantilal Mistry ruling.
RBL Bank and Yes Bank Objections
A similar dispute arose with RBL Bank, which opposed disclosure of its inspection reports for 2013–14 and 2016–17. While the bank pointed to pending writ petitions, the RBI countered that there was no stay from the apex court and that the law, as it stands, mandates disclosure.
Yes Bank has also challenged RTI requests seeking details of its top NPAs, wilful defaulters and inspection reports of public sector banks. The RBI rejected the lender’s confidentiality arguments, stating that the RTI Act, 2005 overrides earlier laws to achieve transparency. It also cited Supreme Court observations that there is “no ambiguity” on the requirement to disclose defaulters’ lists and inspection material.
SBI’s Position on Enforcement Actions
The State Bank of India, meanwhile, objected to the release of show-cause notices and enforcement actions initiated by the RBI from April 2015 onwards. The central bank maintained that such records are disclosable after removing exempt portions under Section 10 of the RTI Act.
CIC’s Observations and Implications
The CIC has noted that while banks continue to raise concerns about reputational damage and commercial harm, the Supreme Court has consistently underscored the primacy of public interest in matters involving banking supervision, NPAs and regulatory action.
Legal and policy experts say the final decision by the CIC’s larger bench could have far-reaching consequences. A ruling in favour of disclosure would significantly enhance transparency in the banking system, strengthen depositor confidence and increase accountability of both lenders and regulators. Conversely, any dilution of disclosure norms could set limits on how far supervisory information can be accessed by the public.
With scrutiny of NPAs, penalties and regulatory lapses intensifying, the outcome of the CIC proceedings is being closely watched across the financial sector, regulators and civil society alike.
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
