INDIAN BANK ASSOCIATION -RTI INTERPRETATION

Date: 26-01-2012                                                                   By post

To,

Chief Advisor-Legal

Indian Banks' Association
World Trade Centre, 6th Floor
Centre 1 Building, World Trade Centre Complex,
Cuff Parade, Mumbai - 400 005

Dear Sir,

SUBJECT: RTI Act 2005 – Preservation of Records by Banks

I happened to peruse following paragraph on your website at

http://www.iba.org.in/rightinfo.asp

“8. Presentation of Records

All the public sector banks are advised to maintain records for 20 years as envisaged under the Right to Information act. Such requirement would be effective from the date the Right to Information Act has come into force, i.e. 15th June 2005. Such requirement will be applicable to all existing records not yet destroyed as also to the records created after the commencement of the Right to Information Act i.e. 15th June 2005.”

2. The above advice appears to have been given to banks by IBA based on section 8.3 of RTI Act which reads as under:

“Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section:

Where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act.”

3. In my humble opinion and that of other RTI activists, RTI does not have any bearing on Record Retention Policies and rules/schedules  framed therein of public authorities including banks, formulated under Public Records Act 1993. Aforesaid section 8.3 only mandates as under:

a. information falling under clauses other than a, c, and i of section 8.1 to be disclosed if information is older than 20 years as on date of RTI application.

b. Information falling under clauses a, c, and i of section 8.1 not to be disclosed even if it is older than 20 years as on date of RTI application.

This does not mean that public authority should maintain records for 20 years and more. Supply of information depends upon availability of records as on date of application.

4. You may refer CIC decision No. 37/ICPB/2006 dated 26-06-2006 which is available at http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_26062006_5.pdf.                I reproduce relevant paragraph for your ready reference:

“5. Further, the public authority has erred in interpreting Section 8(3) of the Act to state that since some of the information related to the period prior to 20 years, the same need not be furnished.  Section 8(3) is part of Section 8, which deals with ‘exemption from disclosure of information”.  Section 8(1) specifies classes of information which are exempt from disclosure.  What Section 8(3) stipulates is that, the exemption u/s 8(1) cannot be applied if the information sought related to a period prior to 20 years except those covered in Section clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section 8(1).  In other words, even if the information sought is exempt in terms of other sub-clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 8, and if the same relates to a period 20 years prior to the date of application, then the same shall be provided.  In the present case, since part of the information sought, even though related to a period prior to 20 years, relate to notifications, DGS&D is bound to furnish the same, if the same is available with it.  It is also stated by the CPIO that the information sought relates to policy matters not dealt with in the administration of the Directorate.  What the appellant seeks is only copies of the notification and, therefore, the question of the same being related to policy matter does not arise. “ [emphasis added]

5. The date of commence of section 8.3 RTI Act is 12-10-2005 and not 15-06-2005. It is 120^th day from 15-06-2005.

6. I request you to review the issue in light of foregoing and revise advice to banks if deemed fit. This will save cost of retention of old records to banks.

Yours faithfully,