{"id":276070,"date":"2022-10-22T10:00:36","date_gmt":"2022-10-22T04:30:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=276070"},"modified":"2022-10-22T10:00:36","modified_gmt":"2022-10-22T04:30:36","slug":"right-to-information-right-to-privacy-ex-debito-justitiae-disclosure-of-confidential-and-sensitive-information-legal-news-legal-updates-supreme-court-hdfc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/22\/right-to-information-right-to-privacy-ex-debito-justitiae-disclosure-of-confidential-and-sensitive-information-legal-news-legal-updates-supreme-court-hdfc\/","title":{"rendered":"Right to Information vis-a-vis Right to Privacy; SC invokes doctrine of ex debito justitiae to hear HDFC’s plea challenging RBI directions mandating disclosure of confidential & sensitive information"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Supreme Court<\/b>: In a case raising a significant question of law as to whether the Supreme Court’s decision can be challenged in a writ petition after attaining finality? The Division Bench of B.R. Gavai<\/b>* and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ., rejected the interlocutory application challenging the maintainability of the writ petition while holding that though the concept of the finality of judgment has to be preserved, at the same time, the principle of “ex debito justitiae<\/i><\/b>1<\/sup><\/a>” cannot be given a go bye<\/b>. The Court added—<\/p>\n

“To err is human, and the Courts including the Apex Court are no exception.”<\/p>\n

Background<\/b><\/p>\n

The instant interlocutory application had been filed to assail the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by various Banks including private banks, inter alia<\/i>, challenging the action of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in directing disclosure of confidential and sensitive information pertaining to their affairs, their employees and their customers under the Right to Information Act, 2005<\/a> (the RTI Act), which is otherwise exempt under Section 8 the RTI Act. The petitioners contended that disclosure of such information is not only contrary to the RBI Act, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949<\/a>, but and also adversely affects the right to privacy of such Banks and their consumers.<\/p>\n

Decisions Challenged<\/b><\/p>\n

Noticeably, the RBI had issued directions to the petitioners\/Banks to disclose certain information pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India<\/i> v. Jayantilal N. Mistry<\/i>, (2016) 3 SCC 525<\/a>. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Mittal<\/i> v. Parvati V. Sundaram<\/i>, (2019) 20 SCC 747<\/a>, while holding that the RBI has committed contempt of this Court by exempting disclosure of material that was directed to be given by this Court, has also held that the RBI was duty-bound to furnish all information relating to inspection reports and other materials. Resultantly, the RBI has modified the policy into a one-line policy, providing therein that the disclosure of information was to be in accordance with the judgment and order of this Court in Girish Mittal (supra).<\/p>\n

Hence, the petitioners have challenged the final judgment in Jayantilal N. Mistry<\/i> (supra) on the following grounds:<\/p>\n