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


Quick Summary
The Supreme Court has clarified that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) does not hold a fiduciary relationship with banks. This means the RBI is not legally bound to act in the best interests of banks in a way that implies trust and confidence. The court emphasised that the RBI's statutory duty is to uphold the public interest, including that of depositors and the economy, and to act with transparency.

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

FAQ :

No, the ruling specifically states the RBI is not in a 'fiduciary relationship' with banks. This doesn't negate its regulatory functions or statutory duties concerning the banking sector, but clarifies the nature of that relationship.

A fiduciary relationship is one where one party places special trust, confidence, and reliance in another, and the latter is obligated to act in the best interests of the former.

The Supreme Court stated the RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large, including depositors, the country's economy, and the banking sector.

No, the court was of the opinion that the RBI has to act with transparency and is duty-bound to comply with the provisions of the Right to Information Act and disclose information.

The clarification arose from a case where the RBI initially refused to disclose certain information, citing a fiduciary relationship with banks as an exemption under the Right to Information Act.

 



Judgement posted by

Guest

Comments




CCI Pro



Company
ARTICLESHIP 14 November 2026
Articleship Assistant

B Thejas and Associates

Bengaluru

CA Foundation

View Details
Company
02 November 2026
Audit Executive

SRJP & Co LLP

Kochi

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 23 October 2026
Articled Trainee

J Y & CO

Hyderabad

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 20 October 2026
CA ARTICLE

AMKN & CO

Noida

CA Inter

View Details
Company
Featured 07 November 2026
Chartered Accountant

DPV & Associates

Chennai

CA

View Details
Company
12 November 2026
Tax Product Specialist

BharatX.ai

Gurgaon

B.Com

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 25 October 2026
Article Intern (CA Articleship)

Arpan Bohra & Co

Hyderabad

CA Inter

View Details
Company
Featured 27 October 2026
semi-qualified CA

Saini Pati Shah & Co LLP, Chartered Accountants

Mumbai

CA Final

View Details