Hindustan Times: Mumbai: Friday, 6th March 2026.
“We must express that the provisions of RTI Act 2005 cannot be used for settling any personal scores and definitely, not as a tool of vengeance,” a division bench of justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande observed
Cautioning against the
misuse of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Bombay High Court recently
ruled that the legislation cannot be used for personal vendetta.
“We must express that the provisions of RTI Act 2005 cannot be used for settling any personal scores and definitely, not as a tool of vengeance,” a division bench of justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande observed on February 23, dismissing four petitions filed by city resident Chandrakant Shah. The order was made available online on Wednesday.
Shah had approached the court in 2023 after his RTI application seeking information about bad or doubtful debts and write-offs by the State Bank of India (SBI) to Essar Steel (ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited), Essar Power, Essar Power MP, Essar Power Gujarat and Essar Constructions between 2012 to 2020 was denied, first by the bank’s public information officer, then the appellate authority, followed by the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC).
Shah had sought similar information under the RTI Act from the Bank of Baroda and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as well.
Before the CIC, Shah contended that the denial of information under RTI was unsustainable as “the information is sought in good faith and out of genuine and serious concern that hard earned money of taxpayers is being splurged by state run banks upon large and powerful corporate borrowers in close nexus between the borrowers, bankers and government officials.”
While the disclosure would not affect the bank’s business interests, the denial of information was “absurd, misplaced and ill-conceived”, Shah told the CIC.
The CIC, however, rejected Shah’s claim, saying providing such information would entail invasion of privacy of third parties which would be covered by section 8 of the RTI Act that refers to exemption from disclosure of information. The CIC held that the information sought was exempted from disclosure since it was in fiduciary capacity.
The high court, in its order dated February 23, said the information sought by Shah was held in confidence by the bank, with its customer. The judges said that personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or is unwarranted invasion of privacy, can be withheld under section 8 of the RTI Act unless there is a larger public interest in its disclosure.
Dismissing four petitions filed by Shah, the court said, “In absence of any such public interest being presented before the authorities including the Central Information Commission, in our view, the applications have been rightly rejected and we see no reason for granting any indulgence.”
The court also noted that Shah had cited his prior dealings with the group of companies as the specific reason for seeking information about its bad debts and write-offs.
“We must express that the provisions of RTI Act 2005 cannot be used for settling any personal scores and definitely, not as a tool of vengeance,” a division bench of justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande observed
“We must express that the provisions of RTI Act 2005 cannot be used for settling any personal scores and definitely, not as a tool of vengeance,” a division bench of justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande observed on February 23, dismissing four petitions filed by city resident Chandrakant Shah. The order was made available online on Wednesday.
Shah had approached the court in 2023 after his RTI application seeking information about bad or doubtful debts and write-offs by the State Bank of India (SBI) to Essar Steel (ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited), Essar Power, Essar Power MP, Essar Power Gujarat and Essar Constructions between 2012 to 2020 was denied, first by the bank’s public information officer, then the appellate authority, followed by the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC).
Shah had sought similar information under the RTI Act from the Bank of Baroda and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as well.
Before the CIC, Shah contended that the denial of information under RTI was unsustainable as “the information is sought in good faith and out of genuine and serious concern that hard earned money of taxpayers is being splurged by state run banks upon large and powerful corporate borrowers in close nexus between the borrowers, bankers and government officials.”
While the disclosure would not affect the bank’s business interests, the denial of information was “absurd, misplaced and ill-conceived”, Shah told the CIC.
The CIC, however, rejected Shah’s claim, saying providing such information would entail invasion of privacy of third parties which would be covered by section 8 of the RTI Act that refers to exemption from disclosure of information. The CIC held that the information sought was exempted from disclosure since it was in fiduciary capacity.
The high court, in its order dated February 23, said the information sought by Shah was held in confidence by the bank, with its customer. The judges said that personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or is unwarranted invasion of privacy, can be withheld under section 8 of the RTI Act unless there is a larger public interest in its disclosure.
Dismissing four petitions filed by Shah, the court said, “In absence of any such public interest being presented before the authorities including the Central Information Commission, in our view, the applications have been rightly rejected and we see no reason for granting any indulgence.”
The court also noted that Shah had cited his prior dealings with the group of companies as the specific reason for seeking information about its bad debts and write-offs.
.JPG)
.JPG)
