Moneylife: National: Friday, September 07, 2018.
Central Information Commissioner (CIC)
Prof Sridhar Acharyulu has directed the finance ministry, the ministry of statistics
& implementation and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to make public, the
names of those bank loan defaulters whose unpaid loans amount to Rs50 crore and
above.
This order is a sequel to the information
sought by an RTI applicant who was refused information by the CPIO of the
ministry of labour & employment. The RTI applicant had sought information
on two issues. One was directly related to the labour & welfare ministry
comprising information on employment guarantee schemes. The second related to
the names of loan defaulters of Rs50 crore and above which the ministry has
nothing to do with, but it was the duty of the Central Public Information
Officer (CPIO) to forward the RTI application to the relevant public
authorities in this case, the ministries of finance and of statistics and
implementation and the RBI.
As per the CIC’s observation in his
order, records show that the CPIO did not forward the RTI application to the
appropriate ministry, which is mandatory under the RTI Act.
Sandeep Singh Jadoun, the RTI applicant,
sought the following information from the ministry of labour & employment
(which included information related to loan defaulters as well as employment
schemes):
Number of willful defaulters (those who
are unwilling to pay despite having the capacity to do so) of loans of Rs50
crore and above, advanced by banks and other financial institutions; with or
without guarantees;
The names of guarantors, details of loans
such as dates of sanction and default and details of non-performing assets
(NPA) accounts;
The cost and investment of the projects
for employment generating schemes initiated by the Central government between
2005 and 2018.
List of failed projects and projects,
which only existed on paper and were never introduced on the floor, with which
the ministry of labour and employment (MoLE) is concerned.
The CPIO declined to provide the
information, stating that since records pertaining to loan defaulters are not
maintained by the MoLE, he had therefore forwarded the RTI application to the
finance ministry. As for the employment schemes, he told the CIC during the
hearing last week, that all information regarding employment schemes launched
by the government such as the Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Protsahan Yojana (PMRPY)
was available on the website www.ncs.gov.in and at a toll free number 1800-4251514,
both of which are functional from Tuesdays to Sundays.
However, the RTI applicant, Jadoun,
argued that the information he was seeking was more elaborate in terms of
details of costs and investments involved in the employment-generating projects
and schemes launched since 2005.
The officer responded that such
information is available with the regional offices under the jurisdiction of
the ministry of rural development, and the ministry of skill development and
entrepreneurship. He also claimed to have forwarded the RTI application to
other related ministries for more information.
The CIC observed that the records show
that the CPIO had not transferred the RTI application to the other public
authorities. The CIC observed, ``When the CPIO does not transfer an RTI request
to the appropriate authority, it becomes his duty to collect the information
and furnish it to the appellant. The CPIO dismissed the request saying
“information was not maintained in the form sought”, which is neither a defence
nor an exception.
This is not recognised as an excuse to
deny information under any of the provisions of RTI.’’
Regarding the number of wilful loan
defaulters of Rs50 crore and above, the CIC referred to several newspaper
reports and stated that such information should be made public under Section 4
of the RTI Act. He writes in his order that this RTI applicant has given the
opportunity to the ministry to upload the information as the public at large
has the right to know the names of individuals who have been given loans, above
Rs50 crore. Similarly, it must share the names of those who have defaulted and
if none have defaulted, it should say so in the public domain.
CIC further states in the order, “The
question is, that when the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has authorised the banks
to prepare the list of wilful defaulters of Rs25 lakh, and after ensuring that
no genuine loan-taker’s name is published in the list of wilful defaulters, why
not ensure publication of the details of wilful defaulters of Rs50 crore and
above as sought by this appellant, to the nation to fulfil the right to
information of the citizens? And why should the government of India, the
ministries of finance and for statistics and program implementation and the RBI
not reveal the action taken or contemplated to recover the loans from wilful
defaulters beyond Rs50 crore, reasons for the failure, criminal actions
initiated, or reasons for not initiating criminal actions etc to the people?’’
The CIC also pointed out that “Section
4(1) (c) of the RTI Act mandates to publish all relevant facts while
formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect the
public; section (d) says provide reasons for its administrative or
quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. What is the policy of the finance
ministry, the ministry for statistics and program implementation and the RBI in
dealing with the wilful defaulters of Rs50 crore and above?’’
Earlier in February 2016, the Supreme
Court directed RBI to furnish a list of the companies which are in default of
loans in excess of Rs500 crore or whose loans have been restructured under
corporate debts restructuring (CDR) scheme by banks and financial institutions.
(Read: Supreme Court asks RBI to submit list of big defaulters)
Even in December 2015, the apex court, in
a landmark judgement, has told the RBI that the banking regulator cannot
withhold information citing 'fiduciary relations' under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act. Hearing a set of transferred cases, a Division Bench of
Justice MY Eqbal and Justice C Nagappan said, "From the past we have also
come across financial institutions which have tried to defraud the public.
These acts are neither in the best interests of the Country nor in the
interests of citizens. To our surprise, the RBI as a Watch Dog should have been
more dedicated towards disclosing information to the general public under the
Right to Information Act. We also understand that the RBI cannot be put in a
fix, by making it accountable to every action taken by it. However, in the
instant case the RBI is accountable and as such it has to provide information
to the information seekers under Section 10(1) of the RTI Act."
In most of the transferred cases,
Shailesh Gandhi, former Central Information Commissioner, while directing the
RBI to provide information sought by applicants, had rejected the central
bank's contention of 'fiduciary relation' for denying information.
.JPG)
.JPG)
