RBI Pushes for Transparency on NPAs and Inspection Reports; Major Banks Resist, Cases Head to CIC Larger Bench

New Delhi, January 12, 2026 – In a significant push for greater transparency in India's banking sector, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has advocated for the disclosure of critical information including lists of non-performing assets (NPAs), willful defaulters, penalties, and inspection reports under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, four major banks—Bank of Baroda (BoB), RBL Bank, Yes Bank, and State Bank of India (SBI)—have strongly opposed these disclosures, citing potential harm to their commercial interests. The disputes have now escalated to the Central Information Commission (CIC), where they are set to be adjudicated by a larger bench, potentially reshaping banking accountability and depositor rights.

The controversy stems from separate RTI applications filed by individuals seeking detailed insights into banking operations and regulatory oversight. These include requests for the top 100 NPAs, lists of willful defaulters from Yes Bank, inspection reports from SBI and RBL Bank, and documents related to a ₹4.34 crore penalty imposed on Bank of Baroda. The RBI, after consulting the banks under Section 11 of the RTI Act—which requires seeking third-party consent for disclosures—determined that the information is "liable to be disclosed" and not exempt under the law.

Background of the RTI Requests

The RTI applicants—Dheeraj Mishra, Vathiraj, Girish Mittal, and Radha Raman Tiwari—targeted specific aspects of banking transparency:

• Dheeraj Mishra sought data on the top 100 NPAs, willful defaulters associated with Yes Bank, and inspection reports of public sector banks.
• Vathiraj requested inspection reports for RBL Bank from the fiscal years 2013-14 and 2016-17.
• Girish Mittal asked for show-cause notices and enforcement actions by the RBI against SBI from April 2015 onwards.
• Radha Raman Tiwari demanded copies of non-compliance cases from Bank of Baroda's Statutory Inspection for Supervisory Evaluation (ISE 2021), including show-cause notices and penalty recovery records.

In each case, the RBI's Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) reviewed the requests and, after severing any exempt portions under Sections 8(1)(d), (e), and (j) of the RTI Act (which cover commercial confidence, fiduciary relationships, and personal information), concluded that the remaining details should be made public. The RBI leaned heavily on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in the Jayantilal N. Mistry case, which mandates the disclosure of RBI inspection reports and related materials to promote public interest and accountability.

Banks' Opposition and Appeals to CIC

The banks, however, contested the RBI's stance, arguing that such disclosures could undermine their competitive positions and reveal sensitive commercial information. They appealed to the CIC, India's apex body for RTI appeals, challenging the disclosures:

• Bank of Baroda: Objected to revealing details of the ₹4.34 crore penalty linked to ISE 2021 findings. BoB claimed the information was "confidential and sensitive" and could adversely affect its business and marketability. The RBI dismissed this, stating that the bank's arguments were "not tenable" and that exemptions had already been applied. BoB has escalated the matter further by approaching the Supreme Court, seeking a reconsideration of the Jayantilal N. Mistry ruling.
• RBL Bank: Opposed the release of its 2013-14 and 2016-17 inspection reports, emphasizing potential commercial harm. The RBI countered by asserting no fiduciary relationship exists between it and the banks, and cited Supreme Court directives from contempt proceedings that stress the duty to disclose inspection reports. RBL referenced pending writ petitions, but the CIC noted the absence of any Supreme Court stay on the existing law.
• Yes Bank: Challenged the disclosure of NPA lists, willful defaulters, and inspection reports, invoking confidentiality. The RBI rejected this outright, affirming that the RTI Act overrides prior laws and that the Supreme Court has unambiguously supported such disclosures.
• State Bank of India: Resisted sharing show-cause notices and enforcement actions from 2015, arguing that the Supreme Court had not fully examined exemptions under Section 8(1)(j). The RBI reiterated its non-fiduciary role and the overriding public interest.

In interim orders, CIC Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi acknowledged the complexity of the issues, noting similarities to prior cases heard by double benches. He referred all matters to a larger bench under the Chief Information Commissioner for comprehensive adjudication. Disclosures have been stayed pending final decisions.

Implications for Banking Transparency

The outcomes of these CIC proceedings could profoundly influence the Indian banking landscape. At a time when non-performing assets remain a persistent concern—totaling trillions of rupees across the sector—greater transparency could empower depositors, investors, and the public to hold banks accountable for lapses in governance and risk management. Critics argue that opacity in NPAs and inspection reports has historically shielded banks from scrutiny, contributing to crises like those involving Yes Bank in recent years.

Proponents of disclosure, including RTI activists, view this as a step toward aligning with global standards of regulatory transparency. The RBI's firm stance underscores its commitment to the RTI Act's objectives, as reinforced by Supreme Court precedents. Conversely, banks warn that unchecked revelations could erode trust in the financial system and expose proprietary strategies.

As the cases await a larger bench's verdict, stakeholders are closely watching for potential shifts in policy. Any ruling could set precedents for future RTI requests, balancing commercial sensitivities with the public's right to know. In the interim, the stay on disclosures maintains the status quo, but the debate highlights ongoing tensions between regulatory oversight and banking autonomy.

This development comes amid broader discussions on monetary policy and governance, with experts like those from PwC noting the RBI's cautious approach to rate cuts in a high-growth, low-inflation environment. Meanwhile, other banks like IndusInd are focusing on expanding boards for better governance, reflecting sector-wide efforts to enhance internal accountability.