 "Supreme Court")
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider the petitions by several banks, including private banks, challenging the Reserve Bank of India (RBI)'s direction to disclose under the Right to Information Act certain confidential and sensitive information pertaining to their affairs, employees and customers.
A bench headed by Justice BR Gavai rejected the preliminary objections raised by one Girish Mittal who as an intervener sought the dismissal of the petitions on the ground that the issues concerning such disclosures have already been put to rest by earlier decisions of the top court.
The court, without expressing any final opinion said that prima facie, the aspect of balancing the right to information and the right to privacy was not considered at that stage.
Noting that the RBI directions in question were passed in view of these earlier decisions, the bench --also comprising Justices CT Ravikumar, observed that in such a scenario, the only remedy available to the banks was under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for protection of the fundamental rights of their customers who are citizens of India.
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, the court stated.
The RBI has issued such directions in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra) and Girish Mittal (supra). As such, the petitioners would have no other remedy than to approach this Court... Without expressing any final opinion, prima facie, we find that the judgement of this Court in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra) did not take into consideration the aspect of balancing the right to information and the right to privacy, the court said.
The court noted that although the concept of the finality of judgement has to be preserved, if it is found that an earlier judgement does not lay down a correct position of law, it is always permissible for it to reconsider the same and if necessary, refer it to a larger bench.
The court also recorded that the banks here were not parties in the earlier matter and the recall application by certain banks in those cases was rejected by the top court without foreclosing their right to pursue other remedies available to them in law.
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 the information even with regard to the individual customers of the Bank. In effect, it may adversely affect the individuals' fundamental right to privacy, the court observed.
We, therefore, hold that the preliminary objection as raised is not sustainable. The same is rejected. 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 are accordingly dismissed, the court ordered.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
