$~86 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6845/2026 & CM APPL. 33636/2026 ICICI BANK LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Misha, Ms. Mahima Sareen, Ms. Sanyukta Fauzdar, Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Mr. Sachin Mintri, Ms. Nandita Kaushik, Advs. versus CPIO, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ramesh Babu MR, Ms. Nisha Sharma and Ms. Manisha Singh, Advs. for R-1. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 18.05.2026 CM APPL. 33637/2026 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 6845/2026 & CM APPL. 33636/2026 3. The instant petition is for the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to Respondent No. 2 to expeditiously list, consider and decide the Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 filed by the Petitioner bearing Diary No. 113881 of 2026 (E-Filing No. 621683 of 2026); and/or (b) Issue a writ, order or direction to Respondent No.1 to not disclose the information sought through the RTI application dated 17.12.2025 bearing registration number RBIND/R/E/25/09122/2 during the pendency of the Second Appeal bearing Diary No. 113881 of 2026 (E- Filing No. 621683 of 2026) before Respondent No. 2; and/or This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2026 at 17:15:42 (c) Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon 'ble Court may deem fit.” 4. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved by non-consideration of the petitioner’s appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The petitioner, thus, contends that owing to statutory instructions, certain penalties were imposed under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), itself, made public disclosure regarding the said penalty orders and the petitioner also disclosed the same to the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange. 5. However, respondent no. 3 filed an RTI statutory inspection report, show cause notice issued to the petitioner, the petitioner's reply thereto, and the final orders passed by RBI, collectively referred to as the Enforcement Documents. It is that information which has been directed to be supplied to the RTI Applicant. 6. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the said order before the first appellate authority and now the matter is pending before the CIC. It is the petitioner’s apprehension that in the interregnum if the appeal is not decided and the information as sought is disclosed, the same would impede the petitioner’s commercial interest. The petitioner also cites an order passed in the case of ICICI Bank Limited vs. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India and Ors.1 seeking similar directions. The said directions are extracted as under: “Considering the circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The Central Information Commission (CIC) shall make an endeavour to take up for hearing and disposal the petitioner’s Second Appeal bearing Diary No.650833/2025 as expeditiously as possible; 1 W.P.(C) 19212/2025 dated 23.12.2025 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2026 at 17:15:42 (ii) the petitioner’s application seeking interim relief / restraint order that the CPIO, RBI be refrained from disclosing the concerned information, shall be taken up for consideration within a period of four weeks from today; (iii) for a period of four weeks from today, the CPIO, RBI shall not disclose the concerned information sought under RTI application dated 22.07.2025 to the respondent no.3/RTI applicant. The same shall be subject to further orders that may be passed by CIC on the petitioner’s request for interim relief; (iv) The petitioner’s request for interim relief shall be examined by the CIC on its own merits. This order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the petitioner’s request in this regard; (v) A copy of order dated 29.04.2025 issued by the RBI (subject matter of the concerned RTI application) shall be produced by the petitioner before the CIC, when the matter is taken up for the purpose of grant of interim relief.” 7. The Court, however, finds that since the petitioner’s appeal is pending before the CIC and a reasonable apprehension is raised that the said appeal will become infructuous if the information is furnished to the RTI applicant, therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the CIC to decide the petitioner’s application seeking interim relief with due expedition not beyond a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today. 8. The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 9. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition along with pending application, stands disposed of. 11. In the meantime, till the application is decided, the RBI is to maintain the status quo qua the information. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J MAY 18, 2026/SH This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2026 at 17:15:42