##PAGE1##

CNR No : HCBM020254362022 Digitally signed by RUSHIKESH RUSHIKESH VISHNU VISHNU PATIL PATIL Date: 1/6 2 WP.5224.2022.odt

2026.10.22

11:09:43 + 0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5224 OF 2022 Bajaj Finance Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Union of India & Others .. Respondents …

Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho, Mr. Jahaan Dastur, Mr. Sachin Chandarana and Mr. Jaiveer Dhakan i/by Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co., for the Petitioner.

Mr. Rui Rodrigues i/b Ms. Anusha Amin, for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 & 12.

Mr. Paras Gada i/by Lion Law, for Respondent No.6.

Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Prachi Pandya and Ms. Bhavya Ganatra i/by Corporate Attorneys, for Respondent No.9.

Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Aditi Phatak, Ms. Megha More, Ms. Twinkle Kalla and Juri Bhiyani i/by BLAC Co., for Respondent No.11-RBI.

Mr. Milind More, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent-State.

...

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &

ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.

DATED: 21st OCTOBER, 2026 P.C:-

1. It is unfortunate that, despite our clear order passed on 28.04.2026, followed by repeated directions, the issue remains unresolved. We had indicated that the Reserve Bank of India has already addressed a communication to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, inviting attention to campaigns by unscrupulous elements on loan waivers and requesting the Ministry to look into the aspect. Taking note of the fact that such a communication was addressed by the Reserve Bank of India on 15.04.2025, which was placed before us, we clearly expressed that immediate steps are required to be taken, and this is what was pointed out to us through the Writ Petition presented to us.

It is in light of this, in our exhaustive order passed on the said date, we recorded that the attention of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, is also invited to such malpractice, which is being indulged into, and we expected this issue to be scrutinized, and we directed the learned counsel representing the Union of India to take appropriate instructions, as we expected some regulatory measures to be evolved by the Ministry of Home Affairs with the concerted efforts of the Reserve Bank of India. However, it appears that our directions have not at all been looked into.

On 25.06.2026, we expected the learned counsel representing the Reserve Bank of India to exchange the communication that was already forwarded to the Union of India (Ministry of Home Affairs). Further, on 28.07.2026, when we had appearance of Mr. Rodrigues, on behalf of the Union of India, we directed correcting the nomenclature of Union of India so as to have the Department of Home Affairs as the party Respondent.

2. Today, i.e. on 21.10.2026, Mr. Rodrigues return to the Court and expressed before us the difficulty posed in finding out the right person/officer in the Home Department to take cognizance of the communication from the Reserve Bank of India and, in short, in finding a resolution to the issue that was highlighted by us and which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition.

3. We find it really unfortunate that we have received such a response from the Union of India, and this despite the fact that it has its own paraphernalia, including various Nodal Officers, Law Officers, Advisors, etc. When we had specifically indicated that this issue deserves consideration by the Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the communication was addressed by the Reserve Bank of India to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Secretary was under an obligation to ascertain as to which branch or which particular section/desk, by whatsoever name it is known, should be entrusted with the communication to the responsible officer, so that the Court would have received a response from the said officer, and upon such a response being placed before us for consideration, we would have attempted a resolution to the issue that