Mathrubhumi: New Delhi: Tuesday, 20 January 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has stayed the disclosure of bank inspection reports, lists of loan defaulters and other supervisory information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, citing the need to await directions from the Supreme Court.
Recognising the wide
national implications, the transparency watchdog ruled that no Non-Performing
Assets (NPA) data, penalty details or related enforcement information will be
released until the apex court decides on pending petitions filed by banks, which
are scheduled for hearing on Tuesday.
The CIC directed its Registry to list the matter after the Supreme Court hearing, as several petitions seek reconsideration of the landmark Jayantilal N Mistry judgment, which had mandated disclosure of RBI inspection reports.
Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi said it would be appropriate to await the Supreme Court’s guidance, given the significance of the issues involved and the apex court’s scheduled hearing.
In a series of interim orders on appeals filed by State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Axis Bank, RBL Bank, Yes Bank, Citibank NA and Ahmednagar Merchants’ Co-operative Bank, the CIC observed that the questions raised require authoritative clarity from the Supreme Court.
The Commission noted that the related writ petitions are listed for hearing on Tuesday, January 20, 2026, and stated that no information should be disclosed until final adjudication.
In one order, the CIC said the case before the Supreme Court “is listed on January 20, 2026, and the decision in Reserve Bank of India & Ors vs Jayantilal N Mistry & Ors is expected to be reconciled by the Supreme Court.”
The cases stem from objections raised by banks to the Reserve Bank of India’s decisions to disclose information such as inspection and risk assessment reports, lists of NPAs and wilful defaulters, show-cause notices, penalties imposed after statutory inspections and related enforcement actions.
The RBI, relying on Supreme Court precedent, had held that such records are “liable to be disclosed” under the RTI Act after severing exempt portions and that it does not share a fiduciary relationship with regulated entities.
Banks, however, challenged the RBI’s stance before the CIC, arguing that disclosure of supervisory and regulatory information would harm their commercial interests and that key aspects of the Jayantilal N Mistry ruling are under reconsideration by the Supreme Court.
In the Axis Bank case, relating to documents connected with a monetary penalty imposed after inspections, the Commission noted that similar matters had earlier been referred to a larger bench and stayed disclosure in the interim.
In the Citibank NA matter, involving inspection reports and show-cause notices, the RBI told the CIC it was bound by the apex court ruling and that any deviation could invite contempt proceedings. Nevertheless, the Commission deferred a final decision and directed that “the respondent shall not disclose the sought information to the original RTI applicant till the final disposal of the instant appeal.”
In another order concerning Ahmednagar Merchants’ Co-operative Bank, the CIC explicitly linked its approach to the upcoming Supreme Court hearing, reiterating that it would be appropriate to await the top court’s guidance.
Similar interim relief has been granted in cases involving SBI, Bank of Baroda, RBL Bank and Yes Bank, where disclosure of NPAs, wilful defaulters’ lists, inspection reports and enforcement actions has been stayed pending consideration by a larger bench of the CIC.
The Commission has referred all such matters to the Chief Information Commissioner for listing before a larger bench and clarified that disclosure will remain stayed until final decisions are taken, with the Supreme Court hearing expected to be a key turning point in the national debate on banking transparency under the RTI law.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has stayed the disclosure of bank inspection reports, lists of loan defaulters and other supervisory information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, citing the need to await directions from the Supreme Court.
The CIC directed its Registry to list the matter after the Supreme Court hearing, as several petitions seek reconsideration of the landmark Jayantilal N Mistry judgment, which had mandated disclosure of RBI inspection reports.
Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi said it would be appropriate to await the Supreme Court’s guidance, given the significance of the issues involved and the apex court’s scheduled hearing.
In a series of interim orders on appeals filed by State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Axis Bank, RBL Bank, Yes Bank, Citibank NA and Ahmednagar Merchants’ Co-operative Bank, the CIC observed that the questions raised require authoritative clarity from the Supreme Court.
The Commission noted that the related writ petitions are listed for hearing on Tuesday, January 20, 2026, and stated that no information should be disclosed until final adjudication.
In one order, the CIC said the case before the Supreme Court “is listed on January 20, 2026, and the decision in Reserve Bank of India & Ors vs Jayantilal N Mistry & Ors is expected to be reconciled by the Supreme Court.”
The cases stem from objections raised by banks to the Reserve Bank of India’s decisions to disclose information such as inspection and risk assessment reports, lists of NPAs and wilful defaulters, show-cause notices, penalties imposed after statutory inspections and related enforcement actions.
The RBI, relying on Supreme Court precedent, had held that such records are “liable to be disclosed” under the RTI Act after severing exempt portions and that it does not share a fiduciary relationship with regulated entities.
Banks, however, challenged the RBI’s stance before the CIC, arguing that disclosure of supervisory and regulatory information would harm their commercial interests and that key aspects of the Jayantilal N Mistry ruling are under reconsideration by the Supreme Court.
In the Axis Bank case, relating to documents connected with a monetary penalty imposed after inspections, the Commission noted that similar matters had earlier been referred to a larger bench and stayed disclosure in the interim.
In the Citibank NA matter, involving inspection reports and show-cause notices, the RBI told the CIC it was bound by the apex court ruling and that any deviation could invite contempt proceedings. Nevertheless, the Commission deferred a final decision and directed that “the respondent shall not disclose the sought information to the original RTI applicant till the final disposal of the instant appeal.”
In another order concerning Ahmednagar Merchants’ Co-operative Bank, the CIC explicitly linked its approach to the upcoming Supreme Court hearing, reiterating that it would be appropriate to await the top court’s guidance.
Similar interim relief has been granted in cases involving SBI, Bank of Baroda, RBL Bank and Yes Bank, where disclosure of NPAs, wilful defaulters’ lists, inspection reports and enforcement actions has been stayed pending consideration by a larger bench of the CIC.
The Commission has referred all such matters to the Chief Information Commissioner for listing before a larger bench and clarified that disclosure will remain stayed until final decisions are taken, with the Supreme Court hearing expected to be a key turning point in the national debate on banking transparency under the RTI law.
.JPG)
.JPG)
