Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed three contempt petitions filed against the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) alleging wilful disobedience of its judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry. The background of the case involves the earlier judgment where the court held that the RBI cannot deny information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on the ground of fiduciary relationship with banks, and that the RTI Act overrides earlier laws. The court had directed the RBI to disclose information regarding inspection reports and other documents to the public, subject to exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The three contempt petitions arose from different RTI applications. In Contempt Petition (C) No. 412 of 2016, the petitioner sought information about losses in foreign derivative contracts, including a bank-wise breakup of mark-to-market losses. The RBI initially did not reply to some queries, but after the judgment, it provided information for query No. 1, stating that there was no reference to losses of more than Rs 32,000 crores in the affidavit filed before the Orissa High Court. The petitioner was dissatisfied and filed contempt. In Contempt Petition (C) No. 59 of 2017, the petitioner sought details of show cause notices and fines imposed by the RBI on banks. The RBI refused disclosure citing exemptions under Section 8(1)(a), (d), and (e) and later issued a disclosure policy on 30.11.2016 that exempted various categories of information, including inspection reports and information held in a fiduciary capacity. The petitioner alleged that this policy contravened the court's judgment. In Contempt Petition (C) No. 928 of 2016, the petitioner sought inspection reports of several banks and information about the Sahara Group and Bank of Rajasthan. The RBI refused citing economic interest and competitive position. The court considered the submissions of the contemnors, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Jaideep Gupta, who argued that there was no intention to disobey the court's directions. Regarding Contempt Petition (C) No. 412 of 2016, he submitted that the only remaining query was answered after the judgment, and the petitioner could seek further information through a fresh application. For Contempt Petition (C) No. 59 of 2017, he argued that the disclosure policy dated 30.11.2016 had been superseded and replaced by another policy, and thus no contempt could be alleged. He also contended that the policy could be challenged through appropriate remedies. The court held that there was no wilful disobedience of its directions. It noted that in Contempt Petition (C) No. 412 of 2016, the RBI had provided the information sought for query No. 1 after the judgment, and the petitioner's dissatisfaction did not amount to contempt. In Contempt Petition (C) No. 59 of 2017, the disclosure policy had been superseded and was no longer in force, so no contempt could be attributed. The court also observed that any application under the RTI Act must be dealt with on its own merits, and the RBI was expected to comply with the law. The court dismissed all three contempt petitions, holding that the RBI had not committed wilful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment dated 16.12.2015.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Standard of Proof - Civil contempt requires proof of wilful and deliberate disobedience of a court order; mere dissatisfaction with information provided or issuance of a superseded policy does not constitute contempt. The court held that there was no ambiguity in the judgment dated 16.12.2015, but the RBI had complied with the directions in respect of the specific queries raised in the contempt petitions. (Paras 8-10) B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Fiduciary Relationship - Section 8(1)(d) and (e) - RBI and Banks - The earlier judgment in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry held that there is no fiduciary relationship between RBI and financial institutions, and information cannot be denied on that ground. The court reiterated that RBI has a statutory duty to act transparently and disclose information under the RTI Act. (Paras 2-3) C) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Economic Interest - Section 8(1)(a) - National Economic Interest - The court in the earlier judgment observed that not all information can be disclosed; matters of national economic interest, such as currency or exchange rates, interest rates, and supervision of banking, could harm the national economy if released prematurely. However, lower-level economic and financial information like contracts and departmental budgets should not be withheld. (Para 3) D) Contempt of Court - Disclosure Policy - Superseded Policy - The RBI's disclosure policy dated 30.11.2016 was superseded and no longer in force. The court held that issuance of a policy that is subsequently replaced cannot be held to be a violation of the court's directions inviting contempt. The petitioner's remedy lies in challenging the policy through appropriate legal proceedings. (Paras 7, 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) committed wilful and deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry by not providing information sought under the RTI Act and by issuing a disclosure policy dated 30.11.2016 that allegedly contravened the said judgment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all three contempt petitions, holding that there was no wilful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment dated 16.12.2015. The court noted that in CP(C) No. 412/2016, the RBI had provided the information for query No. 1 after the judgment, and the petitioner's dissatisfaction did not amount to contempt. In CP(C) No. 59/2017, the disclosure policy had been superseded and was no longer in force, so no contempt could be attributed. The court also observed that any application under the RTI Act must be dealt with on its own merits, and the RBI was expected to comply with the law.
Law Points
- Contempt of court
- wilful disobedience
- fiduciary relationship
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Section 8(1)(d)
- Section 8(1)(e)
- Section 2(f)
- RBI disclosure policy
- inspection reports
- economic interest
- commercial confidence
