Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from the Reserve Bank of India's refusal to disclose information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, citing exemptions under Section 8(1)(a), (d), and (e). Writ petitions were transferred to the Supreme Court, which in a judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, held that RBI must disclose the information as it has a statutory duty to act transparently and is not in a fiduciary relationship with banks. Subsequently, contempt petitions were filed against RBI for willful disobedience, and RBI's disclosure policies were found contrary to the Court's directions. Various banks, including HDFC Bank and State Bank of India, filed miscellaneous applications seeking recall of the 2015 judgment, arguing they were directly affected but not heard, and that the judgment had far-reaching consequences including privacy concerns. The core legal issue was whether these recall applications were maintainable. The banks contended that recall was distinct from review and maintainable due to violation of natural justice, citing precedents like Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb. The respondents argued that such applications were not maintainable as per Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban, being camouflaged review petitions to avoid circulation. The Court analyzed that Supreme Court Rules, 2013 provide for review under Order XLVII but not for recall, and emphasized finality of judgments. It held that the applications were essentially for review, as the substance mattered over nomenclature, and the banks had not attempted to implead themselves earlier. The Court dismissed all miscellaneous applications as not maintainable, clarifying it did not address the correctness of the 2015 judgment and left other remedies open. The decision primarily favored the respondents seeking disclosure.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Recall of Judgment - Maintainability - Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XLVII - Applications styled as recall were filed by banks seeking to recall a judgment directing RBI to disclose information under RTI Act - Court held that these applications were essentially review petitions in disguise, as there is no provision for recall in Supreme Court Rules, and parties had not attempted to implead themselves earlier - Dismissed as not maintainable, leaving other remedies open (Paras 8-10). B) Information Law - Right to Information - Disclosure by RBI - Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 8(1)(a), (d), (e) - RBI had refused information on grounds of exemptions under RTI Act - In earlier judgment, Court held RBI has statutory duty to act transparently and disclose information, not in fiduciary relationship with banks - This judgment does not revisit merits but deals with recall applications (Paras 1-3). C) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience - Directions Compliance - Not mentioned - Contempt petitions were filed against RBI for non-compliance with disclosure directions - Court found RBI's disclosure policies contrary to directions and viewed violations seriously - This context led to recall applications by banks (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the miscellaneous applications for recall of the judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry are maintainable
Final Decision
All miscellaneous applications are dismissed as not maintainable, with clarification that dismissal does not prevent applicants from pursuing other remedies
Law Points
- Recall applications are not maintainable when they are essentially review petitions in disguise
- Supreme Court Rules do not provide for recall
- applications for recall should not be entertained except in extraordinary circumstances
- finality of judgments must be upheld
- substance of application matters over nomenclature
- parties not heard earlier cannot seek recall if they did not attempt to implead themselves
