Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India, in a batch of writ petitions led by Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1159 of 2019, addressed challenges by various banks, including private banks, against the Reserve Bank of India's directions to disclose confidential and sensitive information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The banks contended that such information was exempt under Section 8 of the RTI Act and that special enactments like the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 protected confidentiality. The respondent, through applicant Girish Mittal, filed interlocutory applications seeking dismissal of the writ petitions, arguing that they effectively challenged the final judgment in Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016) 3 SCC 525, which had already settled the issue of disclosure, making the petitions non-maintainable. The core legal issues revolved around whether the writ petitions were maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution given the finality of the previous judgment, the applicability of RTI Act exemptions, and the interplay between confidentiality under banking laws and the right to information. The banks' arguments included submissions on the right to privacy as a fundamental right, the requirement for third-party notice under Section 11 of the RTI Act, and the overriding effect of special statutes. The court, after hearing counsel from both sides, analyzed precedents such as Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra and A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak, which established that judicial decisions cannot be corrected through writ jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the judgment in Jayantilal N. Mistry was final and had considered rival submissions, including those from banks seeking impleadment, and thus could not be reopened. It held that the writ petitions were not maintainable as they sought to challenge a settled judicial decision, and dismissed them accordingly, while allowing the impleadment application. The decision emphasized the principle of finality in litigation and the limits of Article 32 jurisdiction in revisiting concluded matters.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 32 of Constitution of India - Judicial decisions cannot be corrected by the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, as held in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra (1966) 3 SCR 744 and A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 - The court reasoned that judicial proceedings are not subject to writ jurisdiction, preventing challenges to final judgments through writ petitions - Held that the present writ petitions effectively challenge the final judgment in Jayantilal N. Mistry and are thus not maintainable (Paras 5, 7-9). B) Administrative Law - Right to Information - Section 8, Right to Information Act, 2005 - Banks challenged RBI's direction to disclose confidential information under RTI Act, claiming exemption under Section 8 - The court noted that the issue of disclosure under RTI Act was already settled in Jayantilal N. Mistry, where RBI was directed to furnish information - Held that the judgment in Jayantilal N. Mistry is final and cannot be reopened through these writ petitions (Paras 2, 5, 11). C) Banking Law - Confidentiality - Section 35, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Section 45NB, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Banks argued that inspection reports and other materials are confidential under special enactments like Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and RBI Act, 1934, which may override RTI Act - The court considered submissions but found that these aspects were part of the earlier judgment in Jayantilal N. Mistry, which had already addressed disclosure issues - Held that the petitioners cannot relitigate these points as the matter is res judicata (Paras 16-20). D) Procedural Law - Maintainability of Petitions - Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 1159 of 2019 et al. - The writ petitions were filed by banks challenging RBI's actions under RTI Act, with interlocutory applications seeking dismissal on grounds of finality of previous judgment - The court heard arguments from both sides, including reliance on precedents like Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India (1996) 3 SCC 114 - Held that the petitions are not maintainable and dismissed them, allowing the impleadment application (Paras 1-6, 10-12). E) Fundamental Rights - Right to Privacy - Constitution of India - Banks submitted that right to privacy is a fundamental right as recognized in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, which should protect confidential information - The court acknowledged this submission but found it insufficient to override the finality of the Jayantilal N. Mistry judgment, which had already balanced privacy and disclosure under RTI Act - Held that the privacy argument does not justify reopening the settled matter (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitions challenging RBI's directions for disclosure of confidential information under the RT to Information Act, 2005 are maintainable in light of the final judgment in Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016) 3 SCC 525
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the impleadment application (I.A. No.68597 of 2021) and dismissed the writ petitions as not maintainable, holding that they effectively challenge the final judgment in Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry, which cannot be corrected under Article 32 writ jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Judicial decisions cannot be corrected under Article 32 writ jurisdiction
- finality of judgments prevents reopening of settled issues
- right to privacy is a fundamental right
- Section 8 of RTI Act provides exemptions
- Section 11 of RTI Act requires third-party notice
- special enactments may override RTI Act
- confidentiality under Banking Regulation Act
- 1949 and RBI Act
- 1934
- balance between public and private interest in disclosure
