IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) There is no provision in Supreme Court Rules for filing any application for recall of judgment of this Court. Applications filed for clarification, modification or recall are often only a camouflage for review petitions. Such applications should not be entertained, except in extraordinary circumstances.
(2) Nomenclature given to an application is of absolutely no consequence-what is of importance is substance of application.

ORDER :

1. Information sought by the Respondents in Transferred Case (Civil) No.91 of 2015 was not given by the Reserve Bank of India (for short, ‘RBI’) on the ground that such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (a), (d) and (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’). Writ Petitions filed in the High Courts were transferred on the request of the RBI to this Court. By a judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N.Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525, this Court refused to accept the contention of the RBI that the information sought by the Respondents could not be disclosed in view of its fiduciary relationship with the banks. This Court observed that RBI is not in any fiduciary relationship with the banks and that the RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interest of public at large, the depositors, country’s economy and the banking sector. This Court was of the opinion that the RBI has to act with transparency and not hide information that might embarrass the banks and that it is duty bound to comply with the provisions of the Act and disclose the information sought.

2. In some transferred cases, the subject matter of challenge were the orders of Central Information Commissioner by which information was furnished. The orders passed by the Central Information Commissioner giving valid reasons for providing the information were upheld by the aforementioned judgment.

3. Thereafter, Contempt Petitions were filed complaining of willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in its judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Transferred Case (Civil) No.91 of 2015. The disclosure policy of RBI dated 30.11.2016 which was contrary to the directions issued by this Court was found to be in willful disobedience of the judgment dated 16.12.2015. During the course of hearing of the Contempt Petition, it was brought to the notice of this Court that another disclosure policy was uploaded on the RBI website on 12.04.2019. Later on, the RBI deleted the said disclosure policy from its website. Exemptions in the disclosure policy of the RBI which were contrary to the directions issued by this Court were directed to be withdrawn by the RBI through a judgment dated 26.04.2019 in Girish Mittal v. Parvati V. Sundaram & Anr., (2019) 20 SCC 747. This Court observed that violation of the directions of this Court by RBI shall be viewed seriously.

4. M.A. No.2342 of 2019 has been filed by HDFC Bank Limited and Others seeking impleadment in the transferred case and for recall of the judgment dated 16.12.2015 passed by this Court in Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra). By an order dated 18.12.2019, this Court directed the RBI not to release inspection reports, risk assessment reports and annual financial inspection reports of the banks including the State Bank of India. Other private banks also followed HDFC Bank in filing miscellaneous applications for recall of the judgment of this Court in Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra). All the miscellaneous applications were listed along with two Writ Petitions that were filed by the State Bank of India and HDFC Bank. It is relevant to mention that the prayer in the Writ Petitions is to strike down the notices issued by the RBI seeking information from the banks relating to inspection reports, risk assessment reports and annual financial inspection reports. A further direction was sought to the RBI not to disclose confidential and sensitive information related to the banks.

5. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No.1469 of 2019 filed by the State Bank of India and Another, we directed de-tagging of the Writ Petitions as they pertain to a challenge of notices issued by the RBI. We make it clear that all questions raised in the Writ Petitions are left open and the order we propose to pass in the miscellaneous applications will not have any bearing on the consideration of the Writ Petitions on their own merits.

6. The main contention