Banks' Petitions Challenging RBI's RTI Notices : Cases Referred To Bench Led By Justice Nageswara Rao
A division bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday referred a batch of writ petitions filed by different banks challenging the RTI notices issued by the Reserve Bank of India to a bench led by Justice L Nageswara Rao.A division bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari referred the matters to Justice Rao's bench as that bench had earlier dealt with the previous litigations in...
A division bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday referred a batch of writ petitions filed by different banks challenging the RTI notices issued by the Reserve Bank of India to a bench led by Justice L Nageswara Rao.
A division bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari referred the matters to Justice Rao's bench as that bench had earlier dealt with the previous litigations in the matter.
The banks, including State Bank of India, HDFC Bank Ltd, Punjab National Bank, Union Bank of India, Axis Bank, ICIC Bank etc., have approached the Supreme Court challenging notices issued by the Reserve Bank of India to them under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act as regards the disclosure of inspection reports or risk assessment reports for the years FY17-18 & FY18-19.
On April 28 this year, a bench led by Justice Nageswar Rao had refused to recall the 2015 judgment in the case Reserve Bank of India v Jayantilal N. Mistry which had held that the RBI was obliged to disclose defaulters list, inspection reports, annual statements etc., related to banks under the RTI Act. That bench had dismissed the banks' applications observing that the Supreme Court Rules did not have any provision for filing any application for recall of a judgment. However, the bench gave liberty to the banks to pursue other available legal remedies against the Jayantilal Mistry judgment.
Following that, the banks have filed separate writ petitions challenging the RTI notices issued to them by the RBI, arguing that disclosure of sensitive financial information will be detrimental to their business and will compromise confidentiality of depositors. Those writ petitions now stand referred to Justice Rao's bench.
Court room exchange
During the hearing before the bench of Justices Nazeer and Krishna Murari today, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for an intervening party Mr Girish Mittal, argued that the writ petition filed by the banks do not raise any substantial question of law as the matter has already been settled by the apex court in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry (2015). Bhushan pointed out that a bench led by Justice Rao had held the RBI to be in contempt in 2019 for not following the Jayantilal Mistry judgment. The contempt petition was filed by Bhushan's client Girish Mittal.
"Years after the judgement was passed, when the Court held these banks to be in contempt in the Girish Mittal judgement, they have preferred these Writ Petitions," he added
Bhushan submitted that the matter should be posted before a bench presided over by Justice L. Nageswara Rao as he had dealt with the contempt petition and the banks' recall applications.He also raised a preliminary objection on the question of maintainability, arguing that at the time of Jayantilal Mistry, these issues were settled, and the banks who are petitioners in the instant matters were represented through the Indian Bank Association (IBA), who had the opportunity to argue.
He submitted the Court that all the private banks are members of the IBA, and all their communication with the Government is facilitated through the IBA.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for one of the petitioner banks, argued that the Mistry judgement did not deal with the issues in full, but instead only exemption under Section 8(1)(e) was argued. He emphasized that the question concerning all other exemptions under Section 8 are yet to be decided upon, thus requiring the oversight of a 3-judge bench.
On the question of representation through IBA, Sr. Advocate Rohtagi argued that 'merely because an association is a party, does not mean the banks were represented'. He brought attention to the recall order whereby the present petitions were de-tagged from the applications heard by Justice Nageswara Rao, thus not requiring it to be listed before the same bench.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi also argued that at the time of dismissing the recall applications, the merits of the Writ Petitions were not engaged with. Thus, the questions remain open for adjudication. He doubted the intention of Mr Mittal, who is seeking access to 'confidential information, citing concerns relating to the privacy of the banks and its customers as upheld in the Puttaswamy judgement.
Supplementing the arguments submitted by Rohtagi, Senior Advocate KV Vishwanathan submitted that if the sought information in its rudimentary form is divulged to the public, it will cause panic and might result in grave damage to the economy.
The bench led by Justice Nazeer, without expressing any thing on the merits of the arguments, expressed the view that the cases should be heard by a bench led by Justice Rao.
Title: HDFC Bank v. Union of India and connected matters.Click here to read/download the order