 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. I'm Poranjoy Gohar Thakurtha and today we're going to discuss why the Central Information Commission sent a show cause notice to the country's central bank and apex monetary authority, that is the Reserve Bank of India, seeking information about the names of willful defaulters. With me here in the studio of NewsClick, I have a person who's actually in the eye of the storm. He's the person who issued this show cause notice. And I'm very happy to welcome Dr. Madabhushi Sridhar. Acharya Dr. Sridhar is one of the six information commissioners in the CIC. It's headed by the Chief Information Commissioner. And as the Information Commissioner, you are an independent adjudicating authority on what are described as second appeals that have been filed under the Right to Information Act of 2005. Thank you very much Dr. Sridhar for coming here. What made you issue this show cause notice and how do you react to those who are saying that the Central Information Commission, the CIC, has overstepped its limits in issuing this show cause notice to the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Dr. Urjit Patil. Section 20 of Right to Information Act gives Central Information Commission, State Information Commission and authority to issue a show cause notice before coming to conclusion that somebody is liable for non-disclosure of information. It is well defined section and that is the only power Central Information Commission has, Information Commission has such has. Then when this section will be invoked is the question. There are three levels of authorities under Right to Information Act. And you must explain what you mean by second appeals. First it will be PIO, primary level. That's a public information officer. Primary level it is public information officer with the public authority. He will be the designated officer and representative of entire public authority. The application will be filed before him. If he rejects first appeal lies to a senior officer of the same public authority who is also a designated officer. So in other words, if somebody is seeking information from the Reserve Bank of India sure he first has to go to the public information officer and if that is rejected then it goes to another officer above the public information office within the Reserve Bank of India. Correct. And then if he also rejects the applicant will file a second appeal before the independent commission that is Information Commission. That's when it comes to people like. Yes, it comes to me. Then when I'm hearing a case, a case means second appeal, if I find that information sought is available with another public authority. I have an authority and duty to call that other public authority also to explain why you are not given the information. This is the first level. So I asked the information request was from two departments. One Labor Department, Labor Ministry, second RBI in the same RTI application. The Labor Ministry asked they gave the information. Then I asked RBI they came back with a huge list of defenses saying that we can't disclose this information under this law, under that law, under this law. One minute. From what I understand the Reserve Bank of India has raised several technical and legal objections. That is the next step. I'll come to that. So what I'm saying is when an RTI application seeks, applicant seeks information from two different public authorities. The commissioner has an authority to issue notices to both of them. I issued to both of them. Then the second part of RTI application deals with Reserve Bank of India related information. He was asking to be precise who are the defaulters above 50 crore rupees loans. Defaulters include defaulters, willful defaulters and fraudulent defaulters also. It's a class of expression. It includes all the defaulters. The issue we are discussing is about willful defaulters because it's an aggravated form of breach of contract. You define a willful defaulter as a corporate entity or a group of persons who could have repaid the loan but are deliberately not doing so. They had the financial way with all to repay the loan but did not. That is classified as a willful default. That is the meaning. There is no strict definition for that. Let me come to the objections that are supposedly been raised by the Reserve Bank of India. First objection I have not answered yet. You said I have no authority or somebody said that I have outstepped my authority. I have to answer it. First is information commission as an authority to issue Shoka's notice. Number one. The person who is supposed to receive Shoka's notice is PIO primarily. Public information officer primarily. But as I have already told you, PIO is one of the several officers of any public authority who doesn't have complete authority to decide what information has to be disclosed and what should not be. Then he depends on his colleagues, his seniors, his superiors and even sometimes top of the authority because they will hold the information. So here what happened? The information which is supposed to have been given was ordered to be given by CIC earlier. That was challenged and confirmed by the Supreme Court saying that CIC is correct and you have to give that information. And thereafter RBI came up with a policy statement on its official website saying that such information we will not give. Now you tell me whether an ordinary employee, a visited officer at a lower rung, is he responsible for non-disclosure or the person who framed the policy responsible for non-disclosure? So it is the top authority who is responsible for non-disclosure who made it a policy and announced it. So I issued Shoka's notice and law provides for deemed PIO to be issued with Shoka's notice. Here I considered Reserve Bank of India's Chairman, Governor as deemed PIO because he is having the information, he is not giving the information, he is not allowing PIO to give the information and under section 20 whoever obstructs the flow of information can be issued with Shoka's notice and that's why I answered your first question. Okay one minute. I'll just continue along this side. I'm going to come back to the Reserve Bank of India's objections but before that in the media there's a news report wherein a former additional Solicitor General of India, Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharya, he has said that this order is flawed ab initio. That means that the very initial stage and according to him it defies all laws because the CIC, the Central Information Commission, cannot treat the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India as a deemed public information officer. You as an information commissioner, you may be holding a rank on par with that of a judge of the Supreme Court of India but according to Mr. Bhattacharya, you cannot treat the Reserve Bank of India Governor as a deemed public information officer. There is no provision in the Right to Information Act to stop me from issuing Shoka's notice to any authority. Number one. Number two, there are provisions in the Right to Information Act under which I can consider any other officer as deemed PIO. In some cases I issued notices to minister, in some cases I issued notices to other public authority, in some cases I issued notices to vice chancellor. Though there is a First Applied Authority and another person because the file was with the top officer. In one commission, in one national commission, the information was for inspection of a file and that file was reportedly held by the chairman of the commission. Then I have to issue notice to chairman of the commission to facilitate so that authorities totally available at the Right to Information Act. That's over. I have completely given the answer. All right. Now the Reserve Bank of India argues that there are several technical and legal objections. Two disclosing this list of defaulters including willful defaulters. Why? And fraudulent defaulters. These pertain to issues relating to client confidentiality and that information whether it could possibly jeopardize the investigations that are going on and also it could according to the Reserve Bank of India perhaps hurt the economic interests of the country and they have cited a series of laws and provisions. These include the Reserve Bank of India Act of 1934, the Banking Regulation Act of 1949, the Credit Information Companies Regulation Act of 2005, the State Bank of India Act of 1955, the Banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act of 1970 and 1980 and so on and so forth. All of these according to the Reserve Bank of India means that they cannot give the information or will not give the information as you yourself have pointed out. On the website they have a non-disclosure policy. The same objections were raised by the Reserve Bank of India before earlier Central Information Commissioner in 2014 or so, 13 and 14. All of them were considered and rejected. They raised the same objections before the Supreme Court which was hearing repetitions filed by Reserve Bank of India. None other than Anthea Rujina, the famous advocate was presenting these arguments. Same which you have read out now. They also added one more thing. The information given to us is fiduciary in relation, information given in fiduciary relationship need not be disclosed. That another ground also was added by them. All of those grounds went to Supreme Court and Supreme Court thoroughly examined each and every one and then they rejected it saying that you have to give this information. One more point they have raised. That is, all these legislations which you have referred are over-readen by Right to Information Act. No, this is the issue. Does the RTI Act of 2005 override all these statutes or vice versa? RTI Act 2005 has over-readen all other enactments. Not my interpretation. It is the law. No, let me complete. Section 22 says it. And this was accepted by the Supreme Court. This point is accepted thoroughly, specifically by the Supreme Court. I want to make two observations. In the Reserve Bank of India versus Janthilal N. Mistry case which was heard by the Supreme Court of India and there was a judgment in December 2015, you are right. The RBI was asked to disclose the list of willful defaulters after various appeals filed by the RBI was rejected. Similar matter was heard by a larger bench in November 2016 and the then Chief Justice of India, Justice T. S. Thakur. Not heard. It is continuing. Continuing? It is now also pending. All right. He made the following observation in an open court. He said the disclosure of names will not lead us anywhere. This is what the former Chief Justice, Justice T. S. Thakur, is claiming. And he said the root of the problem, according to him, is why are the non-performing assets accumulating? Why are they being allowed to do so? And importantly, the Reserve Bank of India is supposed to have submitted a list of names of these defaulters in a sealed cover to the Reserve Bank, to the Supreme Court of India. Yeah. Then what is the point? What is the question? The question is, if they have given it to the Supreme Court of India, why are you still asking for it? Why is the CRC... Where is the order? Okay. Whether there is any final order by the Supreme Court? Okay. Number one. Number two. Is there a final order of Supreme Court on this subject matter where demand is for information about willful defaulters? The answer is yes. In Jayanthilal N. Mistry case, there are not... There is not one single order. There are dozen orders. One of the orders talks specifically about disclose the list of willful defaulters and put it on your website. That is the order. Explain the action taken against them. That is the order. You have an order on one hand. You have a pending case on the other. Let me complete. Okay. Subjudice is no defense under Right to Information Act. If a matter is pending in Supreme Court or High Court, we will not stop a commission from deciding the case. Unless there is a specific order prohibiting disclosure of information by the Supreme Court or High Court, I am not stopped by any other order. On the other hand, I have a full-fledged, completely heard, finally heard judgment, adjudicated order of a division bench of Supreme Court, which is law according to Article 141 of Indian Constitution. The decision of Supreme Court after complete hearing will constitute declaration of a law. So my order, I mean, order of the CIC earlier supported by Supreme Court in this order forms a precedent. And I have a bound and duty to follow it. If I don't follow it, I'll be committing a mistake. The question is, then why if RBI, the Reserve Bank of India, doesn't come within your purview? Show me a legal provision which stops me from entertaining a notice to another public authority, which is not giving information. Show me one order. Show me one section. That is the answer. Then second, I'll address your question. I'll address your question. Now I'll address your question. It is a counter question for which there is no answer. Second point is your question. Now, we allocate subjects. We allocate subjects for our administrative convenience so that you hear a branch of information request and I'll hear another branch. It doesn't bar me from having a jurisdiction over your branch. Suppose I'm hearing one case and I found a part of this RTI application can be answered by a particular public authority and that public authority has to answer. I'll not transfer my case to another commissioner who is holding the charge of that subject. I'll not. I'll pass an order and they'll give information. It happens every day by every commissioner. Sixth allocation of subjects will be followed when the primary RTI request is with reference to particular subject and particular information commissioner. Now, you understand one more point. This case I did not solicit. It came to me. If this subject is not supposed to be dealt by me, why it was given to me? All right. You've answered the question. Another thing. When the subject contains certain questions, do you think that I have to tear the RTI application appeal into two parts and two commissions will be hearing on the same subject between the same parties? Is it correct? All right. I think you made your point quite well. Then these are the technical issues, administrative issues which do not stop disclosure of information which is not hit by Section 8 or Section 9. Okay. You made your position very clear. Let me, as a layperson, try and understand and comment on why I think that your 2nd of November show-cause notice to Dr. Ujit Patel, governor of the Reserve Bank of India has raised such a hue and cry. And as the old saying goes, the proverbial hornet's nest has been stoked. Why? That's because this list of defaultors possibly includes some very, very rich and I should say powerful individuals and the government or the Reserve Bank of India is wary of disclosing their names. Do you think that is the reason why there's been so much reticence on the part? To read between these lines, it is up to you to have an opinion about it. It is up to you to interpret the way you want. But there is a significant change in your process of interview now. So far, we have discussed questions of law. You have traveled into question of law, question of facts. Now, I'll discuss a little about facts that are involved in this case. Okay. First, they say this information is a very, very significant information. If I disclose, economic interests of the nation will be affected. Sensitive information. Sensitive information. Economic interests of the nation will be affected. Sensitive information is no defense under Right to Information Act. If the disclosure affects economic interests, it is prohibited. Now, let us examine whether the information sought by the applicant, if disclosed, affects national interest, national economic interest. Okay. Now, what is it they have asked? How many people have defaulted payment of loans? It's the question, simple question. What action you are taking? Now, your willful defaulter, defaulter fraudulent is a subclassification. Substance of the RTA application is this. Which are these companies? Who are these individuals? Yeah, names, names and details. Now, which information is affecting the national economic interest? I take loan. I am not asking this information. You have 100 or 1,000,000 people who have taken loans from different banks. List is available. I am not asking for that list. Even if that list is disclosed, it doesn't affect the economy because that is the economy. How does the economy grow? You give loan, charge interest, take money, make profit, give loan to another person. This is the process, the regular routine process of banking. So, your routine process of banking, the information about it will affect the national economy. I can't buy this argument. Number one, number two. When somebody defaulted in paying back loans, he committed breach of contract. If it is fraudulent, it is a crime. If it is huge amount, you are affecting the economy. And you are allowing the persons to go beyond the country. You are allowing or they are going or you are not doing anything? Mr. Vijay Malia is a... I am not naming anyone. I am naming them. It is up to you. You are free. I am on the system. Mr. Neerav Modi is there. Superanjay. I am on the systems. I am not on the individuals. The system is, if somebody is defaulted, you have to collect it. It is your duty, bound in duty. And how do you collect? You will issue a notice through your law department. If it doesn't pay, you will take him to court of law. Which court of law? There it is not a secret... Or it could go into the national company law. Secret delivery in the system. It is an open court. Sir, you can also go to the national company law tribunal. Under the insolvency and bankruptcy code. Say some repetition. Say some appellate tribunal. Say some that petition, this petition. When you have committed a crime, you have to face police stations, investigating agencies, adjudication agencies and perhaps jails also. If I can sort of interpret what you are saying, you could argue, the contrary to what has been claimed, that it is in fact in the economic interests of the country that these companies, these firms and these individuals who have promoted these firms that their names should be disclosed, that they should be named and they should be shamed because they have taken money that belongs to the people of this country and not repeating willfully. One part I will talk about. Naming and shaming is not my concern. When you are committing a crime, or when you are committing a legal wrong, breach of contract is a legal wrong. Committing a crime is a fraudulent activity. When these two things happen, it will come into open in public domain. There is no confidentiality, there is no privacy, there is no secrecy. You discuss a murderer, you discuss a rapist, you discuss a bank defaulter, you discuss a farmer who could not pay the loan, who discuss a medium and small enterprise also. There is no practice in the reserve bank and other banks. If a MSME, micro as small and medium, MSME person doesn't pay, they will advertise with the photographs of the defaulters. Photographs? In newspapers. Advertisement, that means you pay money to the newspaper and colorful photographs of colorful defaulters and you try to collect and if it is a big industrialist, even if he is a defaulter, even if he is a willful defaulter, even if he is a fraudulent defaulter, you protect them. What kind of a justice it is? May I suggest why they are being protected? What kind of a system it is? May I suggest why such individuals are being protected? I will not ask that question. I will not hear that. I will not hear that because the matter is my order. I fully appreciate it. The subject matter of your interview is my order and I have to talk only about my order. Fine. And I will also not talk about what will happen in the future to my order because I am not supposed to. All right. There are objections, there are objections rather that I should not have talked about my order. Now, look at this. Thousands of crores of rupees, lakhs of crores of rupees is being written off and I gave all those aspects to establish public interest aspect and then 7000 loan defaulters fled the country. They are not dying in their fields like farmers. They are happily finding a wonderful residence, luxurious residences beyond the country. These are Deshbhattas who kill himself and they are Deshbhattas. They are going away from the country. They are in London, they are in St. Kitts, they are in Barbados. Again, I am telling you, I don't name. I am on the systems. All right. Now, these are the facts. Is it a fiduciary information? Next question is that. First, I prove that it is not information of national importance, national importance information tohae but it will not affect the economy of this country. In fact, disclosure will improve the economy of the country. All right. Number one. Number two, information given in fiduciary capacity. The reason is this. When I make an application, I'll explain my properties for loan. I'll explain my properties. I'll give names of my spouse and my children, earning members of my family and all other things which others need not seek that information. That is fiduciary information. I agree. But when I defaulted my loan, I did not pay back my loan. The information is not given by me. Information is generated by Reserve Bank of India that you are another bank of India. You have defaulted. Amounted to so many hundreds of crores of rupees. Added interest, you have to pay this much. This is information generated by the banks. So, it is not information given by others. You can't hold it on that ground. And these enactments, I have not answered your question fully. Enactments which are quoted are not repealed. The contention of the RBI is these enactments are not repealed. So, I am bound by it. The answer is they are not repealed but they are overridden to the extent of contradiction. This is the contradiction wherein RBI overrides. So, you cannot use same old excuses which are rejected by the Supreme Court is my point. And another point of view is Sheresh Gandhi's petitions were rejected by the Information Commission. One judgment of Information Commission will not bind the judgment of another commissioner. That is also law. It will bind only the parties. So, my order binds my parties. I am not guided by another judgment of my colleagues. Legally speaking, I respect them. They are good friends. That is a different thing. But when Supreme Court order is there, I am bound by it. When Delhi High Court order is there, I am bound by it. The orders of the Supreme Court early as CIC decisions and the Right to Information Act, Section 22, authorizes me to do what I have done. Thank you, sir. So, I am totally on my leader's turf. Thank you. Thank you for explaining your position. Thank you once again, Dr. Sridhar Acharya. Namaskar. For giving us your time. Thank you. You've just heard what Information Commissioner Dr. Madhav Bhushi Sridhar Acharya Liu has to say about why he issued a show cause notice to the governor of the Reserve Bank of India asking him to disclose the names of defaulters including willful defaulters who have not paid loans that have been borrowed from banks. Thank you for being with us and keep watching NewsClick.