Losing money due to banking errors or negligence can be a deeply frustrating experience for any Indian citizen. The Right to Information (RTI) Act empowers you to seek answers and accountability from public authorities, including banks. This case highlights how RTI can be used to uncover information related to critical banking services like ATM security, and what happens when authorities claim records are lost.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An applicant approached the State Bank of India (SBI) with an RTI application. They were seeking crucial details about ATM operations. Specifically, the applicant wanted to know the established norms for issuing ATM security PIN codes to account holders. They also inquired about the number of security PIN codes issued within a specific timeframe, along with other related information concerning ATM services. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the bank provided a response to each point raised in the application.
How the Public Authority Responded
The situation escalated when the applicant claimed to have suffered a financial loss of Rs. 16,000/-. They alleged that this loss was a result of the bank’s connivance with the courier system used for dispatching sensitive banking materials. The applicant further contended that the bank had acted with malicious intent, not only to send the security PIN code but also this financial detriment. A key piece of information the applicant sought was a copy of the letter pertaining to the ATM that was supposedly dispatched to them. However, the bank denied providing this specific information. The bank’s representative stated that the requested records were unavailable, claiming they had been lost. They also clarified their standard procedure: while ATM cards are sent to the account holder’s registered address, the security PIN code mailer is personally handed over to the account holder after inviting them to the branch. The bank’s representative added that the account holder had indeed received the ATM card, but the PIN mailer receipt was missing from their records. The applicant, however, maintained that they had not received either the ATM card or the security PIN code.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The matter reached the Central Information Commission (CIC) for adjudication. During the hearing, the appellant reiterated their grievance, emphasizing the financial loss incurred due to the bank’s alleged malafide actions and their refusal to provide the letter related to the ATM dispatch. The bank’s representative repeated their earlier stance that the information, specifically the PIN mailer receipt, was not available as the records were lost. The core of the dispute revolved around the availability and disclosure of the letter pertaining to the ATM dispatch, which the applicant believed would substantiate their claim of non-receipt and the bank’s alleged negligence or complicity.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission, after hearing both sides, made a significant observation. The Commission stated that the information sought appellant was directly related to the day-to-day banking services provided bank. Therefore, the respondent (SBI) was obligated under the RTI Act to provide the information. The Commission further directed the bank to provide all available information on an affidavit. This means the bank must officially declare, under oath, what information they have and what they do not, and why. This order underscores that banks, as public authorities, cannot simply claim records are lost to evade their obligations under the RTI Act, especially concerning essential services like ATM operations.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Don’t accept ‘record lost’ as a final answer: Public authorities cannot use the excuse of lost records to deny information, especially when it pertains to crucial services. The CIC expects them to make a genuine effort to locate or explain the absence of records.
- Lesson 2: RTI is for day-to-day services: The RTI Act is a powerful tool to seek information about routine administrative and service-related matters. This includes details about how banking services like ATM PIN dispatch are managed.
- Lesson 3: Seek clear directions from CIC: If a PIO denies information without proper justification, appealing to the CIC can lead to specific directions for disclosure or explanation, holding the authority accountable. The requirement for an affidavit adds weight to the disclosure process.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the correct Public Authority: Determine which bank or financial institution is responsible for the service in question.
- Draft your RTI application clearly: State precisely what information you need, referencing the specific service or transaction. Be factual and avoid emotional language.
- Specify the period: If you are asking for data, mention the relevant timeframe.
- Submit and wait for the response: Pay the prescribed fee and submit your application to the PIO of the concerned authority. If you don’t receive a satisfactory reply within 30 days, you can file a first appeal.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide a copy of the letter or any correspondence related to the dispatch of my ATM security PIN code to my registered address for account number [Your Account Number] during the period [Start Date] to [End Date]. If such records are not available, please provide an affidavit explaining the reasons for their unavailability and the steps taken to preserve such records.
Conclusion
This case serves as a vital reminder that the RTI Act is your ally in seeking clarity and recourse from public institutions, including banks. Even when faced with claims of lost records, the CIC can compel authorities to provide available information or explain its absence. your rights and filing your RTI applications strategically, you can navigate complex issues and hold public authorities accountable for their services.
