GST Course
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

RBI is not in any fiduciary relationship with the banks, clarifies SC

LinkedIn


Court :
Supreme Court of India

Brief :
Information sought by the Respondents in Transferred Case (Civil) No.91 of 2015 was not given by the Reserve Bank of India (for short, ‘RBI’) on the ground that such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (a), (d) and (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’). Writ Petitions filed in the High Courts were transferred on the request of the RBI to this Court. By a judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry

Citation :
M.A. No.2342 of 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

M.A. No.2342 of 2019
In Transferred Case (Civil) No.91 of 2015

Reserve Bank of India
.... Applicant(s)

Versus

Jayantilal N. Mistry & Anr.
…. Respondent (s)

W I T H
M.A. No.805/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.1870/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.534/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.1046/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.1129/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.1646/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.1647/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.1648/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.2008/2020 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.560/2021 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015
M.A. No.573/2021 in T.C.(C) No. 91/2015

O R D E R

1. Information sought by the Respondents in Transferred Case (Civil) No.91 of 2015 was not given by the Reserve Bank of India (for short, ‘RBI’) on the ground that such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (a), (d) and (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’). Writ Petitions filed in the High Courts were transferred on the request of the RBI to this Court. By a judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry

1, this Court refused to accept the contention of the RBI that the information sought by the Respondents could not be disclosed in view of its fiduciary relationship with the banks. This Court observed that RBI is not in any fiduciary relationship with the banks and that the RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interest of public at large, the depositors, country’s economy and the banking sector. This Court was of the opinion that the RBI has to act with transparency and not hide information that might embarrass the banks and that it is duty bound to comply with the provisions of the Act and disclose the information sought.

2. In some transferred cases, the subject matter of challenge were the orders of Central Information Commissioner by which information was furnished. The orders passed by the Central Information Commissioner giving valid reasons for providing the information were upheld by the aforementioned judgment.

3. Thereafter, Contempt Petitions were filed complaining of willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in its judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Transferred Case (Civil) No.91 of 2015. The disclosure policy of RBI dated 30.11.2016 which was contrary to the directions issued by this Court was found to be in willful disobedience of the judgment dated 16.12.2015. During the course of hearing of the Contempt Petition, it was brought to the notice of this Court that another disclosure policy was uploaded on the RBI website on 12.04.2019.

To know more in details find the attachment file

 

Guest
on 19 May 2021
Published in LAW
Views : 30
downloaded 5 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags