[RTI Act] 2015 judgment directing RBI to disclose information about bank loans, customers could affect right to privacy: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday stated that its 2015 judgment directing Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to share details under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) about default in loans taken from public sector banks by industrialists, the top 100 defaulters etc, did not consider balancing the rights to information and privacy [HDFC Bank and ors vs Union of India and ors]..A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar said that in view of the judgment of the top court in RBI v. Jayantilal N Mistry, the RBI is entitled to issue directions to banks to disclose information even with regard to individual customers but it may affect privacy of such customers. "In effect, it may adversely affect the individuals’ fundamental right to privacy....Without expressing any final opinion, prima facie, we find that the judgment 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 made the observation while dismissing the applications challenging the maintainability of pleas by private banks challenging the RBI's moves calling for disclosures." ... this Court did not foreclose the right of the petitioners/Banks 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 information even with regard to the individual customers of the Bank. In effect, it may adversely affect the individuals’ fundamental right to privacy."The judgment explained that both the rights need to be balanced as they are fundamental ones, and also said that a precedent can be revisited by a larger bench if it had laid down an incorrect position of law. "A perusal of the judgments of this Court cited supra would reveal that it has been held that though the concept of finality of judgment has to be preserved, at the same time, the principle of ex debito justitiae [of or by reason of an obligation of justice] cannot be given a go bye. If the Court finds that the earlier judgment does not lay down a correct position of law, it is always permissible for this Court to reconsider the same and if necessary, to refer it to a larger Bench," the judgment said. The Bench observed that it is well within the law for the banks to file petitions under Article 32, to protect customer privacy, and as a result challenge the disclosure norms..The Supreme Court in its 2015 judgment had refused to accept the contention of the RBI that the information sought by the banks could not be disclosed in view of its fiduciary relationship with the banks.The top court had observed that RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large as well as the depositors, the country’s economy and the banking sector. The Court had, therefore, berated the central bank for shirking its duty as a watchdog to disclose information to the general public. It had also dismissed the RBI’s intentions of preserving economic interest as absurd and baseless.In April last year, a Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran had dismissed recall applications against the 2015 ruling, noting that they were review petitions in disguise. .In the present case, private banks had challenged actions initiated by the central bank towards directing the disclosure of confidential and sensitive information' about their customers, employees and internal affairs under the RTI Act. The Bench in the present ruling was only dealing with the maintainability of the same after interlocutory applications (IA) were moved by the original applicants/petitioners in the 2015 judgment. Counsel for the IA applicants submitted that the issue in the present proceedings had already been put to rest in the earlier judgment, and writ jurisdiction of the Court was not maintainable in the present case. Further, review of decisions could not be sought in an Article 32 (remedies to enforce fundamental rights) plea. Counsel for the private banks had contended that the 2015 ruling still gave liberty to the appellants to pursue other remedies available in law, adding that the right to privacy had since been held as a fundamental right by a 9-judge bench. It was contended that private banks are not 'public authority', and further, disclosing sensitive information is in violation of the Banking Regulation Act, the Credit Information Companies Act, and Section 45NB of the RBI Act. The Court in its judgment held that an issue of law can be overruled later on as well by correcting earlier judgments that may cause a miscarriage of justice. .Relying on its decision in AR Antulay, the Court emphasised that," ... once a judicial satisfaction is reached that the direction was not open to be made and it is accepted as a mistake of the court, it is not only appropriate but also the duty of the court to rectify the mistake by exercising its inherent powers. It has been held that, to err is human, and the Courts including the Apex Court are no exception."Further, the Court stated that an Article 32 writ cannot be dismissed on ground of maintainability only because the issue concerned has already been decided. In the instant case, the top court had left alternate remedies as per law open to be pursued, the judgment noted. .Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the applicants moving the IAs. Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Mukul Rohatgi, Dushyant Dave, Jaideep Gupta, KV Viswanathan and advocate Divyanshu Sahay represented the private banks. [Read Judgment]