ETV Bharat / business

RBI likely to withdraw non-disclosure policy under RTI

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the RBI was duty bound to disclose information related to wilful defaulters.

RBI
author img

By

Published : Apr 26, 2019, 8:51 PM IST

New Delhi: After being rapped by the Supreme Court, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is likely to withdraw its 2016 policy of non-disclosure of information on big loan defaulters under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The move will allow the central bank to disclose the annual inspection reports of the banks and the list of wilful defaulters under the RTI Act.

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the RBI was duty bound to disclose information related to wilful defaulters.

The banking regulator has not officially responded to the SC order so far. Sources said the RBI would discuss the SC order to decide the next course of action on disclosure of information under the RTI Act. An email sent to the apex bank did not elicit any response.

The RBI also did not reveal whether it would straightaway share the information sought by the RTI applicants or will seek time to review the SC order before acting upon it.

According to another source, considering that the SC has said it was giving the RBI "one last opportunity", there is not much that RBI could do but abide by the order and withdraw its 2016 application on non-disclosure policy for RTI query. Any laxity will invite contempt of court proceedings against the central bank.

The apex court, while directing the RBI to withdraw its non-disclosure policy, warned that any future violation of the transparency law would be taken "seriously".

The SC held that the RBI's non-disclosure policy was in violation of a top court order passed in 2015, which directed the central bank to disclose information under the provisions of the RTI Act.

Opinions were divided on whether internal assessment reports should be made public.

Former RBI Deputy Governor Rama Subramaniam Gandhi told IANS: "It is a standard practice all over the world that bank supervisors keep the inspection report confidential. Public disclosures can undermine public confidence in the banks through uninformed and out of context interpretations."

Read more:Be more transparent: Supreme Court raps RBI in final warning

He also said that public disclosures will not help the banks recover money from the defaulters.

However, proxy advisory and corporate governance firm InGovern said that the SC order was a war on non-performing assets (NPAs) and that being shareholders of the public sector banks, people had the right to know such information.

"It (the order to disclose information) may not help the banks, but it will definitely help the investors in the banks and the taxpayers in general if they get to know about the wilful defaulters and what exactly the RBI said in the inspection reports. It will surely help the shareholders track down the divergences made by many banks on NPA disclosures," said Sriram Subramanyam, Managing Director at InGovern.

"Taxpayers are the shareholders in PSU banks and they are paying for the wilful defaulters. So they have the right to know what is the quantum of NPAs and who are the wilful defaulters. This should be seen as a war on NPAs," he said.

This is for the second time in a month that the SC has struck down some of the key decisions of the RBI taken during its former Governor Urjit Patel's tenure.

On April 2, the apex court declared RBI's February 2018 NPA circular as "ultra vires," mandating insolvency proceedings.

In that order, the SC quashed the February 12, 2018 RBI circular which gave the lender banks six months' time to resolve their stressed assets or move under insolvency proceedings against defaulters in loans worth over Rs 2,000 crore.

With regard to the non-disclosure policy, the case was filed after the petitioners were denied copies of inspection reports of ICICI Bank, Axis Bank, HDFC Bank and State Bank of India from April 2011 till December 2015. They had sought the same under the RTI Act in December 2015. In January this year, the court had issued a contempt notice to the RBI.

New Delhi: After being rapped by the Supreme Court, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is likely to withdraw its 2016 policy of non-disclosure of information on big loan defaulters under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The move will allow the central bank to disclose the annual inspection reports of the banks and the list of wilful defaulters under the RTI Act.

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the RBI was duty bound to disclose information related to wilful defaulters.

The banking regulator has not officially responded to the SC order so far. Sources said the RBI would discuss the SC order to decide the next course of action on disclosure of information under the RTI Act. An email sent to the apex bank did not elicit any response.

The RBI also did not reveal whether it would straightaway share the information sought by the RTI applicants or will seek time to review the SC order before acting upon it.

According to another source, considering that the SC has said it was giving the RBI "one last opportunity", there is not much that RBI could do but abide by the order and withdraw its 2016 application on non-disclosure policy for RTI query. Any laxity will invite contempt of court proceedings against the central bank.

The apex court, while directing the RBI to withdraw its non-disclosure policy, warned that any future violation of the transparency law would be taken "seriously".

The SC held that the RBI's non-disclosure policy was in violation of a top court order passed in 2015, which directed the central bank to disclose information under the provisions of the RTI Act.

Opinions were divided on whether internal assessment reports should be made public.

Former RBI Deputy Governor Rama Subramaniam Gandhi told IANS: "It is a standard practice all over the world that bank supervisors keep the inspection report confidential. Public disclosures can undermine public confidence in the banks through uninformed and out of context interpretations."

Read more:Be more transparent: Supreme Court raps RBI in final warning

He also said that public disclosures will not help the banks recover money from the defaulters.

However, proxy advisory and corporate governance firm InGovern said that the SC order was a war on non-performing assets (NPAs) and that being shareholders of the public sector banks, people had the right to know such information.

"It (the order to disclose information) may not help the banks, but it will definitely help the investors in the banks and the taxpayers in general if they get to know about the wilful defaulters and what exactly the RBI said in the inspection reports. It will surely help the shareholders track down the divergences made by many banks on NPA disclosures," said Sriram Subramanyam, Managing Director at InGovern.

"Taxpayers are the shareholders in PSU banks and they are paying for the wilful defaulters. So they have the right to know what is the quantum of NPAs and who are the wilful defaulters. This should be seen as a war on NPAs," he said.

This is for the second time in a month that the SC has struck down some of the key decisions of the RBI taken during its former Governor Urjit Patel's tenure.

On April 2, the apex court declared RBI's February 2018 NPA circular as "ultra vires," mandating insolvency proceedings.

In that order, the SC quashed the February 12, 2018 RBI circular which gave the lender banks six months' time to resolve their stressed assets or move under insolvency proceedings against defaulters in loans worth over Rs 2,000 crore.

With regard to the non-disclosure policy, the case was filed after the petitioners were denied copies of inspection reports of ICICI Bank, Axis Bank, HDFC Bank and State Bank of India from April 2011 till December 2015. They had sought the same under the RTI Act in December 2015. In January this year, the court had issued a contempt notice to the RBI.

ZCZC
PRI ECO GEN INT
.LONDON FGN26
UK-MALLYA
Mallya's extradition: UK High Court to hear liquor tycoon's plea on July 2
By Aditi Khanna
         London, Apr 26 (PTI) Embattled liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya has been allocated July 2 as the date for a brief hearing to convince a High Court judge that he should be given permission to proceed to a full-blown appeal process against his extradition to India to face alleged fraud and money laundering charges amounting to Rs 9,000 crores.
         The 63-year-old former Kingfisher Airlines boss had filed the "renewal application" earlier this month after he failed in his first written attempt seeking leave to appeal in the High Court. The renewal involves a short oral hearing before a High Court judge, now scheduled for July 2, where his lawyers will further plead his case against being extradited to India.
         "A date for the oral consideration has been set for July 2," a UK court official said on Friday.
         UK home secretary Sajid Javid had signed off on a Westminster Magistrates' Court order for Mallya to be extradited to face the Indian courts back in February.
         Mallya then filed an application for permission to appeal against that decision in the High Court, which was refused by Justice William Davis, giving him a week to apply for oral consideration via a renewal application.
         "Once a renewal application is made, it will be listed before a High Court judge and dealt with at a hearing," said a UK Judiciary spokesperson.
         On July 2, Mallya's legal team and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) arguing on behalf of the Indian government will go head to head to reiterate factors for and against the businessman's extradition to Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai. A High Court judge must now decide following the oral consideration if Mallya's appeal can proceed to a full hearing.
         It will mark one of the final stages of the appeals process in the UK as the chances of permission to appeal to the Supreme Court are unlikely if permission to appeal is denied at the High Court stage.
         Mallya would have the option to approach the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) based in Strasbourg, France, to argue against his extradition to India on human rights grounds by trying to prove a real threat of harm or torture.
         Meanwhile, the businessman remains on bail on an extradition warrant executed by Scotland Yard in April 2017. At the end of a year-long extradition trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London last December, Judge Emma Arbuthnot had ruled that the flashy billionaire had a case to answer in the Indian courts.
         The court had also dismissed any bars to extradition on the grounds of the prison conditions under which the businessman would be held, as the judge accepted the Indian government's assurances that he would receive all necessary medical care at Barrack 12 in Mumbai's Arthur Road Jail. PTI AK
ZH
ZH
04261733
NNNN
ETV Bharat Logo

Copyright © 2024 Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., All Rights Reserved.