caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Reserve Bank Of India vs Jayantilal N. Mistry on 28 April, 2021Author: L. Nageswara Rao
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Vineet Saran
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
M.A. No.2342 of 2019
In
Transferred Case (Civil) No.91 of 2015
Reserve Bank of India
…. Applicant(s)
Versus
Jayantilal N. Mistry & Anr.
…. Respondent (s)
WITH
M.A. No.805/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.1870/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.534/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.1046/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.1129/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.1646/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.1647/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.1648/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.2008/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.560/2021 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.573/2021 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
O R D E R
1. Information sought by the Respondents in Transferred
Case (Civil) No.91 of 2015 was not given by the Reserve
Bank of India (for short, ‘RBI’) on the ground that such
1 | Page
information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)
(a), (d) and (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
(hereinafter, the ‘Act’). Writ Petitions filed in the High Courts
were transferred on the request of the RBI to this Court. By a
judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Reserve Bank of India v.
Jayantilal N. Mistry 1, this Court refused to accept the
contention of the RBI that the information sought by the
Respondents could not be disclosed in view of its fiduciary
relationship with the banks. This Court observed that RBI is
not in any fiduciary relationship with the banks and that the
RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interest of public at
large, the depositors, country’s economy and the banking
sector. This Court was of the opinion that the RBI has to act
with transparency and not hide information that might
embarrass the banks and that it is duty bound to comply with
the provisions of the Act and disclose the information sought.
2. In some transferred cases, the subject matter of
challenge were the orders of Central Information
Commissioner by which information was furnished. The
orders passed by the Central Information Commissioner
1 (2016) 3 SCC 525
2 | Page
giving valid reasons for providing the information were
upheld by the aforementioned judgment.
3. Thereafter, Contempt Petitions were filed complaining
of willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court
in its judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Transferred Case (Civil)
No.91 of 2015. The disclosure policy of RBI dated
30.11.2016 which was contrary to the directions issued by
this Court was found to be in willful disobedience of the
judgment dated 16.12.2015. During the course of hearing of
the Contempt Petition, it was brought to the notice of this
Court that another disclosure policy was uploaded on the RBI
website on 12.04.2019. Later on, the RBI deleted the said
disclosure policy from its website. Exemptions in the
disclosure policy of the RBI which were contrary to the
directions issued by this Court were directed to be withdrawn
by the RBI through a judgment dated 26.04.2019 in Girish
Mittal v. Parvati V. Sundaram & Anr. 2. This Court
observed that violation of the directions of this Court by RBI
shall be viewed seriously.
4. M.A. No.2342 of 2019 has been filed by HDFC Bank
Limited and Others seeking impleadment in the transferred
2 (2019) 20 SCC 747
3 | Page
case and for recall of the judgment dated 16.12.2015 passed
by this Court in Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra). By an order
dated 18.12.2019, this Court directed the RBI not to release
inspection reports, risk assessment reports and annual
financial inspection reports of the banks including the State
Bank of India. Other private banks also followed HDFC Bank
in filing miscellaneous applications for recall of the judgment
of this Court in Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra). All the
miscellaneous applications were listed along with two Writ
Petitions that were filed by the State Bank of India and HDFC
Bank. It is relevant to mention that the prayer in the Writ
Petitions is to strike down the notices issued by the RBI
seeking information from the banks relating to inspection
reports, risk assessment reports and annual financial
inspection reports. A further direction was sought to the RBI
not to disclose confidential and sensitive information related
to the banks.
5. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No.1469 of 2019 filed by the
State Bank of India and Another, we directed de-tagging of
the Writ Petitions as they pertain to a challenge of notices
4 | Page
issued by the RBI. We make it clear that all questions raised
in the Writ Petitions are left open and the order we propose
to pass in the miscellaneous applications will not have any
bearing on the consideration of the Writ Petitions on their
own merits.
6. The main contention of the Applicants for recall of the
judgment in Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra) is that the
judgment has far reaching consequences and the applicants
who are directly and substantially affected were not made
parties and heard. They relied upon the judgments of this
Court in Budhia Swain & Ors. v. Gopinath Deb & Ors. 3,
Royal Paradise Hotel (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana &
Ors.4, Asit Kumar Kar v. State of W.B. & Ors. 5 and
Vishnu Agarwal v. State of U.P.& Anr. 6 to contend that
the application for recall of the judgment is maintainable
when there is violation of principles of natural justice. It was
also argued on behalf of the banks that an application for
recall is different from review. The learned counsel
appearing for the banks submitted that the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised to recall the
3 (1999) 4 SCC 396
4 (2006) 7 SCC 597
5 (2009) 2 SCC 703
6 (2011) 14 SCC 813
5 | Page
judgment in Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra) which failed to
consider important questions of law. It was further argued
that the judgment in Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra) addressed
a limited perspective. In the said judgment, this Court did
not consider the important aspect of violation of the right to
privacy which has been held to be an intrinsic part of the
right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &
Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 7. Another submission made
on behalf of the banks is that the judgment in Jayantilal N.
Mistry (supra) is per incuriam as certain judgments of this
Court have not been considered. An attempt was made to
make submissions regarding the correctness of the judgment
which was curtailed by this Court on the ground that
arguments were being heard only regarding the
maintainability of the applications for recall.
7. The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted
that it has been held by this Court in Delhi Administration
v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors. 8 that applications for recall
are filed to avoid filing Review Petitions which are decided by
7 (2017) 10 SCC 1
8 (2000) 7 SCC 296
6 | Page
way of circulation. It was held in the said judgment that
such applications are not maintainable. The learned counsel
further referred to the judgments of this Court in B.K.
Pavithra and Others v. Union of India and Others 9,
Saurabh Chaudri (Dr.)& Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 10
and Rashid Khan Pathan : In Re : Vijay Kurle and
Others11. It was argued on behalf of the Respondents that
the judgment in Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra) was delivered
after hearing RBI and ICICI Bank. All the banks were aware of
the hearing of the case but did not take any step to get
themselves impleaded. The Contempt Petition filed for non-
implementation of the directions issued by this Court in
Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra) was against the RBI and the
Applicants could not have been made parties to the
Contempt Petitions. The learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents submitted that it is in public interest that the
information that was directed to be furnished under the RTI
Act by the RBI is revealed.
8. Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 provides
for the remedy of filing application for review. There is no
9 (2020) SCC Online SC 822
10 (2004) 5 SCC 618
11 2020 SCC Online SC 711
7 | Page
provision in the Supreme Court Rules for filing any
application for recall of the judgment of this Court. In Delhi
Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors. (supra), this
Court made it clear that applications filed for clarification,
modification or recall are often only a camouflage for review
petitions. It was held that such applications should not be
entertained, except in extraordinary circumstances. While
relying upon this judgment of this Court in Rashid Khan
Pathan (supra), this Court was of the opinion that filing
applications which are not maintainable amounts to abuse of
process of Court. In the said judgment, this Court reiterated
the importance of finality of a judgment and held that parties
should not be permitted to file applications to reopen
concluded judgments of this Court.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants cited
judgments of this Court in their support to distinguish a
review from recall. It was argued that a review petition
would require consideration of the matter on merits in case
there is an error apparent on the face of record. Whereas,
recall applications are entertained only in case the judgment
is passed without jurisdiction or without an opportunity of
8 | Page
hearing being given to the affected party. All the judgments
that are cited on this point are cases where petitions for
recall were entertained when a person directly affected by
the judgment was not heard. In the instant case, the
dispute relates to information to be provided by the RBI
under the Act. Though the information pertained to the
banks, it was the decision of the RBI which was in challenge
and decided by this Court. No effort was made by any of the
applicants in the miscellaneous applications to get
themselves impleaded when the transferred cases were
being heard by this Court. The applications styled as recall
are essentially applications for review. The nomenclature
given to an application is of absolutely no consequence –
what is of importance is the substance of the application –
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India12. A close scrutiny of the
applications for recall makes it clear that in substance, the
applicants are seeking a review of the judgment in
Jayantilal N.Mistry (supra). Therefore, we are of the
considered opinion that these applications are not
maintainable. We make it clear that we are not dealing with
any of the submissions made on the correctness of the
12 (2019) 2 SCJ 640
9 | Page
judgment of this Court in Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra). The
dismissal of these applications shall not prevent the
applicants to pursue other remedies available to them in law.
10. All the Miscellaneous Applications are dismissed.
……………………………J.
[ L. NAGESWARA RAO]
………………………….J.
[VINEET SARAN]
New Delhi,
April 28, 2021.
10 | P a g e
Comments