1. “Every life deserves a certain amount of dignity, no matter how poor or damaged the shell that carries it” said the Pulitzer Prize winning writer Mr. Rick Bragg in his book-All Over But the Shoutin'. The propriety of the bank publishing the photograph of loanees in newspapers prejudicially affecting their dignity falls for consideration in these two writ petitions.

2. The State Bank of India (the 'Bank' for short) has obtained a decree for money against the petitioner in WP(C) No. 10864/2013 and another in O.S. No. 643/2010 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Ernakulam. The same petitioner has also been convicted for dishonour of cheque at the instance of the bank in S.T. No. 4388/2010 on the file of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery. Similarly the bank has filed a suit for realisation of money against the petitioner in WP(C) No. 10781/2013 and two others on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Kottayam wherein the written statements are yet to be filed. It is at this juncture has the bank issued notices to the petitioners threatening to publish their photographs, names and addresses in the leading newspapers. The petitioners challenge the proposed action of the bank as arbitrary and without any legislative sanction besides being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The bank maintains that it is entitled to resort to any step for realisation of the amount due including publishing the photographs of the petitioners so long as the same is not forbidden by law. The bank points out that such a course has been approved by the High Courts of Madras and Madhya Pradesh even though frowned upon by the High Court of Kolkata.

3. I heard Mr. Praveen Hariharan, Advocate and Mr. Abraham Mathew, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. R.S. Kalkura, Advocate on behalf of the bank. I also heard Mr. P. Deepak, Advocate as Amicus Curiae who deserves a rich encomium for the able assistance rendered to court.

4. No doubt the bank is entitled to file a suit or initiate proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 for realisation of its dues. The bank can also resort to proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 for realisation of its dues in respect of certain categories of loans advanced. The decree obtained from the civil court can be put to execution or the security interest enforced under the SARFAESI Act or coercive revenue recovery steps initiated against the defaulter. But there is no provision in any of the enactments enabling the bank to threaten the loanees about its intention to publish their photographs in leading newspapers on failure to repay the debt within a specified date. It is to be noticed that publishing the photographs of loanees in newspapers is not a measure permitted under Section 13 (4) against which only an appeal would lie under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The property could be restored possession of to the loanees depending on the outcome of the appeal against the decree in the suit or the appeal in the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act. But the damage would have already been done by publishing the photographs of the loanees in the newspapers in the interregnum which cannot be undone even if a verdict favourable to them is rendered in appeal. The notice contemplated under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is only intended to notify the details of the property offered as security interest. It may at best caution the public from entering into any transaction with the loanees in respect of the property notified and does not permit the publishing of the photographs of loanees. A public authority like the bank has the power to realise the dues only in a manner authorised by law quite unlike a private financier who can resort to any step unless forbidden by law. Situa