Banks Cannot Coerce Defaulters To Pay By Publishing Their Photos, It Violates Right To Privacy & Reputation : Kerala High Court

Manju Elsa Isac

24 Dec 2024 9:15 AM IST

  • Banks Cannot Coerce Defaulters To Pay By Publishing Their Photos, It Violates Right To Privacy & Reputation : Kerala High Court
    Listen to this Article

    The Kerala High Court held that a bank cannot publish the photo and details of defaulting borrowers to coerce them to repay loan. Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that such acts invade a person's right to live with dignity and reputation.

    The borrowers cannot be coerced to repay the loans by threatening to damage their reputation and privacy. The publication or display of photographs and other details of defaulting borrowers in public will be an invasion on the right of the borrowers to live with dignity and reputation. Such deprivation of life and personal liberty cannot be made except according to procedure established by law.”

    The Court noted that such acts infringe a person's right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also noted this is not a mode of recovery mentioned in any Act or Rules

    The petition was filed by the Chempazhanthi Agricultureal Improvement Co-operative Society challenging a communication by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies directing them to remove the flex board displaying the names and photographs of defaulting borrowers in front of their head offices. The Bank submitted that they had demanded money from these defaulters many times before they resorted to this method. They submitted that many people repaid their loan after the publication of their details. They said that motivated by the success, they are preparing another set to put up in the Bank premises.

    They argued that this is similar to the “beat of tom-tom” mentioned in Rule 81 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rule, 1969 which is permitted during the attachment and sale of immovable properties.

    The Court commented that the practice of tom-tomming is an outdated and primitive method. The Court however did not decide on the legal validity of the practice as it was not an issue in this case.

    Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates P. N. Mohanan, C. P. Sabari, Amrutha Suresh, Gilroy Rozario

    Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. Resmi Thomas (GP)

    Case No: WP(C) 45919 of 2024

    Case Title: The Mangement Committee of Chempazhanthi Agricultural Improvement Co-operative Society and Another v The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 823

    Click Here To Read/ Download Order


    Next Story