ED has been conducting a money laundering investigation against Anil Ambani and Reliance Communications based on FIRs from CBI and the economic offences wing of Delhi Police against alleged siphoning off of bank funds and a fraud bank guarantee case.
In a recent development highlighting the ongoing tension between transparency and privacy in India’s banking sector, the State Bank of India (SBI) has rejected an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, by activist Ajay Basudev Bose. The RTI, submitted on July 11, 2025, sought detailed information regarding the borrower account of Reliance Communications (RCom), a telecommunications company formerly led by businessman Anil Ambani. The bank’s response, dated August 5, cited exemptions under the RTI Act, raising questions about public accountability and the balance between individual privacy and public interest.
Ajay Basudev Bose, a resident of Amravati, has been a prominent RTI activist known for seeking transparency in public institutions. His latest RTI application targeted SBI, requesting specific details about RCom’s loan account, which was classified as fraudulent by the bank in June 2025. This classification followed allegations of fund diversion, with SBI reporting a fund-based principal outstanding of Rs 2,227.64 crore and a non-fund-based bank guarantee exposure of Rs 786.52 crore, as disclosed in Parliament on July 22. The matter has since been escalated to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for further probe.
Bose’s application, referenced as SAMBIII/ADM/RTI/2025-26/107, included multiple queries about the borrower account. However, SBI’s response, signed by the Central Public Information Officer and Deputy General Manager, declined to provide the requested information, invoking exemptions under Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j), and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
SBI’s Response
SBI’s reply to Bose’s application was structured para-wise, addressing each point raised in the RTI:
- Bose sought specific details about RCom’s borrower account. SBI stated that the information is held in a fiduciary relationship with the borrower, making it exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, which protects information held in a fiduciary capacity. Additionally, the bank cited Section 8(1)(j), arguing that the information pertains to personal details, the disclosure of which has no bearing on public activity or interest and could invade the borrower’s privacy.
- For the remaining queries, SBI reiterated the exemption under Section 8(1)(j), emphasizing that the information is personal and unrelated to public interest. The bank also invoked Section 8(1)(h), claiming that disclosing the details could impede ongoing investigations, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders, given the fraud classification and referral to the CBI.
SBI concluded its response by informing Bose of his right to appeal within 30 days to the First Appellate Authority, General Manager at SBI’s SAMRO office in Mumbai.
Public Interest vs. Privacy: The Debate
Bose’s RTI request is part of a broader effort by activists to ensure transparency in how public sector banks handle high-value loan defaults, especially when taxpayer money is at stake. Previous RTI queries such as those concerning legal fees paid to advocate Harish Salve in the electoral bonds case, have similarly been rebuffed, citing privacy and fiduciary exemptions. This pattern has fueled criticism that public banks may be shielding sensitive information under the guise of legal exemptions.
The RTI Act, enacted in 2005, aims to promote transparency and accountability in governance. However, exemptions under Section 8 often create a gray area, allowing public authorities to withhold information deemed sensitive. In this case, SBI’s reliance on Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j), and 8(1)(h) underscores the tension between the public’s right to know and the bank’s obligation to protect client confidentiality, particularly during ongoing investigations.
Is SBI’s Response Just and Fair? An Analysis
SBI’s refusal to disclose details about RCom’s borrower account raises critical questions about the balance between transparency and privacy in public sector banking. On one hand, the bank’s invocation of Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) is legally grounded, as banks often hold client information in a fiduciary capacity, and disclosing personal financial details could violate privacy rights. Moreover, Section 8(1)(h) is relevant given the ongoing CBI investigation, as premature disclosure could potentially compromise the probe. SBI’s adherence to RBI’s fraud risk management guidelines and its procedural steps, such as issuing multiple notices to RCom, further bolster its position that due process was followed.
On the other hand, the public interest argument cannot be dismissed lightly. RCom’s massive debt and the fraud classification involve significant public funds, as SBI is a public sector bank. Activists like Bose argue that taxpayers have a right to know how such accounts are managed, especially when allegations of fund diversion point to systemic issues in corporate lending. SBI’s consistent use of exemptions in similar RTI cases, such as the electoral bonds controversy, suggests a pattern of opacity that could erode public trust. A more balanced approach might involve redacting sensitive personal details while providing aggregated or anonymized data to address public concerns without violating privacy. The bank’s blanket refusal, without exploring such options, risks fueling perceptions of secrecy rather than transparency.
Connect with us at mystory@aawaazuthao.com