Supreme Court on Disclosure of Financial Information by RBI under the RTI Act

INTRODUCTION

 

On today’s show, we will discuss a case that has a chequered history. The name of the Case is Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 348, involving questions relating to disclosure of financial information under the RTI Act. In order to understand the matter, let us go through the chronology of events that has transpired in relation to this case.

 

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

 

On 16.12.2015, the Supreme Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525, had held that the public has a right to know about the functioning of the RBI and the Banks (This includes details such as Inspection reports, risk assessment reports and annual financial inspection reports of the banks). This also includes any lapses in regulatory compliances and merely because such disclosure may adversely affect the public confidence cannot be a reason for denial of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The Court further elaborated on Section 8 (2) of the RTI Act that provides that “if public interests in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests,” then such information ought to be disclosed. It was also observed in this case that transparency counter-balances arbitrariness, mistakes and corruption. There must be transparency as regards such organisations so that citizens can make an informed choice about them.

 

Then in another Judgment in the case of Girish Mittal v. Parvati V. Sundaram & Another, (2019) 20 SCC 747, Contempt Petitions were preferred in relation to non-compliance of Judgment dated 16.12.2015 that we just discussed. The Supreme Court disposed of the Contempt Petitions by granting the Reserve Bank of India and other Banks one last opportunity to comply with the Judgment dated 16.12.2015 and make appropriate disclosures in relation to Inspection Reports and other such materials.

 

Thereafter certain Impleadment Applications were filed in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, that we are discussing today , to seek recall of the Judgment dated 16.12.2015 on the grounds that: -

a. Some banks were not made party to the case and Application for recall is maintainable where there is a violation of principles of natural justice.

b. Recall is different from review.

c. The Court did not consider the aspect of violation of right to privacy due to disclosure of such financial information and many other important questions of law were not considered.

 

 

HELD BY THE COURT

 

Now, let us understand what was held by the Supreme Court in this case.

 

Firstly, the Court observed that there is no provision for seeking a recall of the judgment in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and “applications filed for clarification, modification or recall are often only a camouflage for review petitions.” It was further observed that “filing applications which are not maintainable amounts to abuse of process of Court.” So according to the Court, there is no provision for seeking a recall of any order or judgment in the Supreme Court Rules under which all the applications and all the cases are filed before the Supreme Court.

 

Secondly, the Court explained the difference between review and recall and stated that Recall Petitions are entertained when a person directly affected by a judgment is not heard. According to the Court, in the present case, the matter pertained to information that was to be provided by the RBI under a law that is under the RTI Act. The RBI challenged such disclosure, and it was within the knowledge of the banks that this case was filed. The banks did not make any efforts to get themselves impleaded at that point of time and the Applications styled as Recall Applications in the present case are essentially seeking Review of the Judgment dated 16.12.2015.

 

Thirdly, based on the reasoning that we just discusseding, the Court held that the Recall Applications filed by the RBI and the Banks, are not maintainable as nomenclature of an application is of no consequence. Thus, the Applications filed by the RBI and the Banks were dismissed.

 

Those were the observations of the Court. So, what are my concluding remarks?

 

CONCLUSION

 

I feel that Reserve Bank of India and other banks are public institutions, that run on public money. It should be asked from them the amount of money they wasted in challenging the Judgment dated 16.12.2015. And why are the RBI and the banks afraid to disclose basic information about their financial health to the general public? Filing Review Petitions in the garb of Recall Applications is something quite deplorable. Recall Applications are generally filed when an Order passed becomes difficult to be implemented due to reasons such as abrupt change in circumstances, absolute non-compliance of principles of natural justice or passing an Order without jurisdiction whereas in the case of Review Petitions, they are preferred where there is an error apparent on the face of record such as wrong appreciation of law, ignoring an established legal precedent etc.

 

I think the Court rightly held that in the name of recall, review is being sought. I hope that this is the last round of litigation in relation to the issue of disclosure of public information by the RBI and the Banks. It is the public money that is lying with the RBI and the Banks. The Banks and the RBI must not forget that.