IMPORTANT POINTS
Reconsideration of main judgment cannot be ordered under Contempt jurisdiction.
Any aggrieved party can maintain a contempt petition.

JUDGMENT :

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. The three Contempt Petitions are filed complaining of wilful and deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Transfer Case (Civil) No.96 of 2015.

2. The subject matter of the judgment in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016 (3) SCC 525) is whether the information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RTI Act’) can be denied by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the other banks on the ground of economic interest, commercial confidence, fiduciary relationship or public interest. The facts of all the 11 Writ Petitions which were transferred to this Court are similar. The information that was sought by the Respondents in the transfer cases was refused on the ground that there was a fiduciary relationship between the RBI and the other banks, and hence, the information cannot be disclosed in view of the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act. In all the cases that were transferred to this Court, the Central Information Commissioner directed the RBI to disclose the information sought for by the Respondents in the transfer cases. The RBI assailed the orders passed by the Central Information Commission by filing Writ Petitions in the High Courts which were transferred to this Court and decided by the judgment dated 16.12.2015. In the said judgment dated 16.12.2015, this Court held that the Right to Information Act, 2005 overrides all earlier laws in order to achieve its objective and the only exceptions to access to information were those which were contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act. The argument of the RBI that the information sought for by the Respondents therein was rightly refused on the ground of fiduciary relationship, was rejected by this Court. It was observed by this Court that there is no fiduciary relationship between the RBI and the financial institutions and by attaching an additional ‘fiduciary’ label to the statutory duty, regulatory authorities have intentionally or unintentionally created an in terrorem effect. This Court further emphasized that RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interests of the public-at-large, the depositors and the country’s economy and the banking sector. This Court was also of the opinion that the RBI should act with transparency and not hide information that might embarrass the individual banks and that the RBI is dutybound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and disclose the information sought by the Respondents therein. The submission made on behalf of the RBI that the disclosure would hurt the economic interests of the country was found to be totally misconceived. While referring to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, this Court was of the opinion that the intent of the Legislature was to make available to the general public such information which had been obtained by the public authorities from private bodies. On the basis of the above observations, it was held that the RBI is liable to provide information regarding inspection reports and other documents to the general public.

3. Being alive to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, under which information can be denied to the public to guard national security, sovereignty, national economic interest and relations with foreign states etc. this Court observed that not all the information that the Government generates shall be given to the public. Matters of national economic interest, disclosure of information about currency or exchange rates, interest rates, taxes, the regulation or supervision of banking, insurance and other financial institutions, proposals for expenditure or borrowing and foreign investments could in some cases harm the national economy, particularly, if released prematurely. However, lower-level economic and financial information like contracts and departmental budgets should not be withheld under this exemption, according to this Court in the judgment dated 16.1