BRIEF FACTS
The present writ petitions are challenging the final judgment and order dated 16th December 2015, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal N. Mistryand that it is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. It held had held that the Reserve Bank of India was obliged to disclose defaulters list, inspection reports, annual statements etc., related to banks under the Right to Information Act.
The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent-RBI, vide which the RBI issued directions to the petitioners/Banks to disclose certain information, which according to the petitioners is not only contrary to the provisions as contained in the RTI Act, the RBI Act and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, but also adversely affects the right to privacy of such Banks and their consumers.
It is submitted on behalf of all the writ petitioners/Banks that what is under challenge is the action of the RBI compelling the petitioners to disclose certain information which itself is exempted under the provisions of the RBI Act.
It is submitted that various other special enactments specifically prohibit such information to be disclosed. It is submitted that since the RBI’s directions are issued in pursuance to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Jayantilal N. Mistry, the petitioners cannot approach the High Court and the only remedy that is available to the petitioners is by way of the present writ petitions.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The division bench in the present petition observed that the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry did not take into consideration the aspect of balancing the right to information and the right to privacy.
The Court further held that A Nine-Judge Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy and another (supra) has held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. In case of such a conflict, the Court is required to achieve a sense of balance. It held that the writ petitions under Article 32 can be maintained to challenge such directions regardless of the Jayantilal Mistry case.
“In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra), the RBI is entitled to issue directions to the petitioners/Banks to disclose information even with regard to the individual\ customers of the Bank. In effect, it may adversely affect the individuals’ fundamental right to privacy.”
Thereby, the preliminary objection raised against the sustainability of the writ petitions was dismissed. The writ petitions will be heard on merits.
CASE TITLE: HDFC Bank and ors vs Union of India and ors
CASE DETAILS: WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 1159/2019
CORAM: HDFC BANK LTD. & ORS. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
