Summary
Banks petitioned under Article 32 against RBI directions to disclose confidential information about themselves and their customers under the RTI Act. The RBI had issued those directions following Jayantilal N. Mistry (2015) and Girish Mittal. An applicant sought dismissal because the petitions in effect challenged a final judgment of this Court. The Supreme Court rejected the objection. Following Sanjay Singh, Rupa Ashok Hurra bars an Article 32 challenge to a judgment's final order, not re-examination of its ratio, unless the parties and cause of action are the same. The banks were not parties to Jayantilal, and the 2021 order refusing recall left other remedies open. Prima facie, Jayantilal did not balance information rights against the privacy right recognised in Puttaswamy, and only this Court could grant relief.
Issues
- Whether writ petitions under Article 32 by banks challenging RBI directions to disclose information under the RTI Act were barred because they effectively questioned this Court's decision in RBI v Jayantilal N. Mistry.
- Whether the dismissal of the banks' recall applications in 2021 prevented the present petitions.
- Whether the issue of balancing the right to information against the right to privacy warranted examination despite Jayantilal N. Mistry.
Provisions considered
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaArticle 32 cannot be used to set aside the final order in a judgment of this Court (Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar, Rupa Ashok Hurra). It may, however, be invoked by non-parties alleging violation of fundamental rights, even if that requires re-examining the ratio of an earlier decision (Sanjay Singh). (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 29, 35, 36, 42)
- Article 21 (right to privacy), Constitution of IndiaPuttaswamy recognised privacy as a fundamental right. Where it conflicts with the right to information, the two must be balanced, which Jayantilal prima facie did not do. (¶¶ 39, 40, 42)
- Sections 8 and 11, Right to Information Act, 2005The banks invoked the exemptions and the third-party procedure, together with confidentiality provisions in the RBI Act and the Banking Regulation Act. These were matters for decision on the merits and were not decided at this stage. (¶¶ 2, 13, 18, 20, 42)
Held
- A final judgment of this Court cannot be quashed under Article 32, and a question of fact settled between the same parties cannot be reopened collaterally. An issue of law, however, can later be reconsidered. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- Finality must be balanced against the duty to do justice ex debito justitiae. This Court may reconsider its own decisions, or refer them to a larger Bench, where the earlier ratio requires re-examination (Rupa Ashok Hurra, A.R. Antulay, Sanjay Singh). (¶¶ 30, 32, 34, 36, 41)
- The petitioning banks were not parties to Jayantilal N. Mistry, and the order of 28.04.2021 dismissing their recall applications expressly left other remedies open. (¶¶ 37, 38)
- Without final opinion, Jayantilal prima facie did not balance information rights against privacy. Because the RBI's directions rest on this Court's decisions, the banks had no forum other than Article 32 to protect their customers' fundamental rights. The preliminary objection was rejected. (¶¶ 39, 40, 42, 43)
Result
Preliminary objection rejected and the applications seeking dismissal of the writ petitions as not maintainable were dismissed. The impleadment application was allowed, and the writ petitions were to proceed.