Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
HDFC Bank Ltd. & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
I.A. No.68597 of 2021 and I.A. No. 51632 of 2022 in & Writ Petition (Civil) No.1159 of 2019, I.A. No.54521 of 2022, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1469 of 2019, 683, 690, 709, 768, 765 of 2021, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14343 of 2022
Decided on : 30-09-2022
(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 8 – Right to information – Exemption – Confidential and sensitive information – RBI is entitled to issue directions to petitioners/Banks to disclose information even with regard to individual customers of Bank – In effect, it may adversely affect individuals’ fundamental right to privacy – Right to privacy is a fundamental right – Right to information is also a fundamental right – In case of such a conflict, Court is required to achieve a sense of balance. (Paras 39 and 40)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Writ Jurisdiction – Scope and ambit – When a question of fact has reached finality inter se between parties, it cannot be reopened in a collateral proceeding – However, it has been observed that an issue of law can be overruled later on – No man should suffer because of mistake of court – No man should suffer a wrong by technical procedure of irregularities – Though concept of finality of judgment has to be preserved, at the same time, principle of ex debito justitiae cannot be given a go-bye – If Court finds that earlier judgment does not lay down correct position of law, it is always permissible for Supreme Court to reconsider the same and if necessary, to refer it to a larger Bench. (Paras 28, 32 and 41)
Facts of the case:
Present batch of writ petitions has been filed by various Banks including private banks, inter alia, challenging action of the respondent-Reserve Bank of India in directing disclosure of confidential and sensitive information pertaining to their affairs, their employees and their customers under Right to Information Act, 2005, which, in their submission, is otherwise exempt under Section 8 thereof.
Findings of Court:
This being the Apex Court, no litigant has any opportunity of approaching any higher forum to question its decision. The only remedy available to the petitioners would be to approach this Court by way of writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for protection of the fundamental rights of their customers, who are citizens of India.
Result : Writ Petitions (Civil) dismissed.
ORDER :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. For the reasons stated in I.A. No.68597 of 2021 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1159 of 2019 for Impleadment, the same is allowed.
2. This batch of writ petitions has been filed by various Banks including private banks, inter alia, challenging the action of the respondent-Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “RBI”) in directing disclosure of confidential and sensitive information pertaining to their affairs, their employees and their customers under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the RTI Act”), which, in their submission, is otherwise exempt under Section 8 thereof.
3. We are treating Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1159 of 2019 as the lead matter.
4. Interlocutory Applications being I.A. No. 51632 of 2022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1159 of 2019 and I.A. No.54521 of 2022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.683 of 2021 have been filed by the applicant-Girish Mittal, thereby seeking dismissal of the present writ petitions.
5. It is the contention of the applicant that the present writ petitions, in effect, are challenging the final judgment and order dated 16th December 2015, passed by this Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525 and hence the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-Girish Mittal and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Dushyant Dave, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, and Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsels and Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners/Banks.
7. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel, submitted that the issue which is sought to be raised in the present writ petitions has already been put to rest by a judgment of this court in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra). It is further submitted that this Court, in the case of Girish Mittal vs. Parvati V. Sundaram and another, (2019) 20 SCC 747 = Contempt Petition (C) No. 928 of 2016 in Transfer Case (C) No. 95 of 2015, decided on 26th April 2019, while holding that the RBI has committed contempt of this Court by exempting disclosure of material that was directed to be given by this Court, has also held that the RBI was duty bound to furnish all information relating to inspection reports and other materials.
8. Mr. Prashant Bhushan relies on the judgment of a Nine Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (1966) 3 SCR 744 in support of his proposition that a judicial decision cannot be corrected by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. He also relied on the judgment of a Seven-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak and another, (1988) 2 SCC 602 to contend that the judicial proceedings in this Court are not subject to the writ jurisdiction thereof.
9. Mr. Prashant Bhushan further submitted that this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Barat vs. Secretary, Indian Tea Association and others, (2001) 5 SCC 42 has also held that the validity of an order passed by this Court itself cannot be subject to writ jurisdiction of this Court.
10. Mr. Bhushan also relied on the judgments of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in the cases of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and another vs. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India, (1996) 3 SCC 114, Mohd. Aslam vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 2 SCC 749 and Union of India and others vs. Major S.P. Sharma and others, (2014) 6 SCC 351 and the judgment of a Five-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and another, (2002) 4 SCC 388 to buttress his submissions.
11. Mr. Bhushan further submitted that in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra), several Miscellaneous Applications were filed on behalf of the Banks for impleadment. As such, the judgment delivered in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra) is after cons
Right to information – RBI is entitled to issue directions to petitioners/Banks to disclose information even with regard to individual customers of Bank.
(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 camoufl....
RTI Act overrides statutory confidentiality in bank inspection reports; matter stayed pending Supreme Court clarification on public interest vs privacy.
Criminal complaints for non-supply of RTI information barred by Section 23 RTI Act; exclusive remedy via appeals. Inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS not invocable post-revision absent grave misca....
Disclosure of information under the RTI Act must respect third-party privacy and fiduciary exemptions unless public interest justifies disclosure, reinforcing the balance between transparency and pri....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
