1
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Contempt Petition (C) No.928 of 2016
In
(Transfer Case (C) No.95 of 2015)
GIRISH MITTAL
.... Petitioner
Versus
PARVATI V. SUNDARAM & ANR.
…. Respondent (s)
With
Contempt Petition (C) No.412 of 2016
In
(Transfer Case (C) No.96 of 2015)
And
Contempt Petition (C) No.59 of 2017
In
(Transfer Case (C) No.95 of 2015)
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The three Contempt Petitions are filed complaining of
wilful and deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by
this Court in the judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Transfer Case
(Civil) No.96 of 2015.
2
2. The subject matter of the judgment in Reserve Bank of
India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry1 is whether the information sought
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘RTI Act’) can be denied by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI)
and the other banks on the ground of economic interest,
commercial confidence, fiduciary relationship or public interest.
The facts of all the 11 Writ Petitions which were transferred to
this Court are similar. The information that was sought by the
Respondents in the transfer cases was refused on the ground that
there was a fiduciary relationship between the RBI and the other
banks, and hence, the information cannot be disclosed in view of
the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act. In
all the cases that were transferred to this Court, the Central
Information Commissioner directed the RBI to disclose the
information sought for by the Respondents in the transfer cases.
The RBI assailed the orders passed by the Central Information
Commission by filing Writ Petitions in the High Courts which
were transferred to this Court and decided by the judgment
dated 16.12.2015. In the said judgment dated 16.12.2015, this
Court held that the Right to Information Act, 2005 overrides all
earlier laws in order to achieve its objective and the only
1 2016 (3) SCC 525
3
exceptions to access to information were those which were
contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act. The argument of the RBI
that the information sought for by the Respondents therein was
rightly refused on the ground of fiduciary relationship, was
rejected by this Court. It was observed by this Court that there
is no fiduciary relationship between the RBI and the financial
institutions and by attaching an additional ‘fiduciary’ label to the
statutory duty, regulatory authorities have intentionally or
unintentionally created an in terrorem effect. This Court further
emphasized that RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interests
of the public-at-large, the depositors and the country’s economy
and the banking sector. This Court was also of the opinion that
the RBI should act with transparency and not hide information
that might embarrass the individual banks and that the RBI is
dutybound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and
disclose the information sought by the Respondents therein. The
submission made on behalf of the RBI that the disclosure would
hurt the economic interests of the country was found to be totally
misconceived. While referring to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, this
Court was of the opinion that the intent of the Legislature was to
make available to the general public such information which had
4
been obtained by the public authorities from private bodies. On
the basis of the above observations, it was held that the RBI is
liable to provide information regarding inspection reports and
other documents to the general public.
3. Being alive to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, under which
information can be denied to the public to guard national
security, sovereignty, national economic interest and relations
with foreign states etc. this Court observed that not all the
information that the Government generates shall be given to the
public. Matters of national economic interest, disclosure of
information about currency or exchange rates, interest rates,
taxes, the regulation or supervision of banking, insurance and
other financial institutions, proposals for expenditure or
borrowing and foreign investments could in some cases harm
the national economy, particularly, if released prematurely.
However, lower-level economic and financial information like
contracts and departmental budgets should not be withheld
under this exemption, according to this Court in the judgment
dated 16.12.2015. On the basis of the above findings, the
transfer cases filed by the RBI were dismissed and the orders
passed by the Central Information Commission were upheld.
5
Contempt Petition (C) No.412 of 2016
4. The Petitioner filed an application dated 12.10.2010
seeking information from the RBI regarding the loss to the nation
in the foreign derivative contract cases. According to him, there
was a loss of Rs 32,000/- crores. The Petitioner also sought for a
bank-wise breakup of the mark-to-market (MTM) losses. In all,
the Petitioner sought information for 10 queries in his
application. No reply was given to query numbers 1, 2, 9 and 10.
The Appellate Authority under the RTI Act directed the RBI to
provide information for queries 2, 9 and 10. Incomplete
information was given for queries 2, 9 and 10 according to the
Petitioner. The Central Information Commission directed the RBI
to furnish information in respect of queries 1, 2, 9 and 10. In
obedience to the direction issued by the Central Information
Commission, RBI furnished information for queries 2, 9, 10.
However, the RBI filed a Writ Petition in the High Court
aggrieved by the directions issued by the Central Information
Commission qua query No.1. After the judgment of this Court
on 16.12.2015, RBI provided the information for query No.1.
Query No. 1 pertained to information regarding the market
6
losses on account of currency derivatives to the tune of 32,000/-
crores as stated by the RBI in an affidavit filed before the Orissa
High Court. The Petitioner sought a bank-wise breakup of the
MTM losses. The reply given by the RBI was that there was no
reference to losses of more than 32,000/- crores on account of
currency derivatives in the affidavit filed by RBI in Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 344 of 2009 in the High Court of Orissa. The
relevant paragraph of the affidavit filed in High Court of Orissa
was also furnished to the Respondent. Not satisfied with the said
information and being convinced that the RBI was intentionally
withholding information in spite of the directions issued by this
Court, this Contempt Petition is filed.
Contempt Petition (C) No.59 of 2017
5. The Petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act
seeking details of the Show Cause Notices and fines imposed by
the RBI on various banks. The information was not disclosed by
the RBI by claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(a), (d) and (e)
of the RTI Act on the ground that the disclosure would affect the
economic interest of the country, the competitive position of the
banks, and that the information cannot be disclosed by the RBI as
7
it received the same in a fiduciary capacity. The RBI uploaded a
Disclosure Policy on 30.11.2016 on its website by which the
Public Information Officers were directed not to disclose
virtually all kinds of information. The Petitioner has filed the
above contempt case aggrieved by the disclosure policy dated
30.11.2016, which according to him, is in direct contravention of
the directions issued by this Court by its judgment dated
16.12.2015. One of the exemptions in the disclosure policy
relating to the department of banking regulation was that
information relating to specific supervisory issues emanating
from inspection or scrutiny reports received from other
supervisory departments are exempted from disclosure. Similar
exemption was given to the inspection reports falling within the
purview of the ‘department of banking supervision’. Any
information obtained from/submitted by banks/Financial
Institutions and held by the RBI in a fiduciary capacity was also
exempted from disclosure. The learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the exemptions from disclosure
mentioned in the disclosure policy are contrary to the directions
issued by this Court in its judgment dated 16.12.2015.
8
Contempt Petition (C) No.928 of 2016
6. The Petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act on
18.12.2015 seeking information relating to the inspection reports
of ICICI bank, AXIS bank, HDFC bank and State Bank of India
from 01.04.2011 to the date of filing of the application. The
Petitioner sought further information relating to the Sahara
Group of Companies and Bank of Rajasthan. The information
sought by the Petitioner was not given by the Central Public
Information Officer of the RBI in view of the exemption from
disclosure under Section 8(1)(a) and (b) as the disclosure was
not in economic interest of the State, and would adversely affect
the competitive position of the third party. Though the Petitioner
was not a party to the judgment of this Court dated 16.12.2015,
he filed the contempt petition as non-furnishing the information
that he sought for was in contravention of the directions issued
by this court by its judgment dated 16.12.2015.
7. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the contemnors made a valiant effort to impress upon us that the
judgment of this court dated 16.12.2015 needs reconsideration.
He submitted that there is no intention on the part of the
Respondents to disobey the directions given by this Court in the
9
judgment dated 16.12.2015. In respect of Contempt Petition (C)
No. 412 of 2016, he referred to the relevant material to submit
that the only query which remained to be answered by the RBI
was query No.1. After the judgment of this Court, the
information sought for was given to the Petitioner on 18.02.2016.
A contempt petition is not maintainable merely because the
Petitioner is not satisfied with the information given to him.
According to Mr. Gupta it is open to the Petitioner to file another
application for further information if he is of the opinion that the
entire information sought by him was not furnished. In any
event, according to Mr. Gupta, the Contempt Petition is notmaintainable. In so far as the disclosure policy dated 30.11.2016
is concerned, he argued that the said policy is superseded and
no complaint can be filed against the implementation of the
disclosure policy as the said policy does not exist. Moreover,
Mr. Gupta submitted that issuance of the said policy cannot be
held to be a violation of the directions given in the judgment
dated 16.12.2015 inviting a contempt petition. If the Petitioner is
aggrieved by the policy, he has to challenge the policy by
resorting to the remedies available to him in law. He informed
us that the policy dated 30.11.2016 is replaced by another policy
10
which would be put on the website of the RBI. Mr. Gupta
strenuously submitted that a leeway was given to the RBI in the
matter of providing information on certain issues that were
mentioned in paragraph 77 of the judgment. He referred to the
said paragraph to support the disclosure policy. He finally
submitted that if this Court feels that the policy is in violation of
the directions issued by this Court, it would be taken off the
website. The main submission made by Mr. Gupta is that any
application filed under the RTI Act shall have to be dealt with
separately on its own merits.
8. There is an element of public policy in punishing civil
contempt, since administration of justice would be undermined if
the order of any Court of law could be disregarded with
impunity.
2 There is no ambiguity in the judgment of this Court
dated 16.12.2015. After holding that there is no fiduciary
relationship between the RBI and the other banks, this Court
stressed the importance of the RTI Act, and held that it is in the
interest of the general public that the information sought for by
the Respondents therein has to be furnished. There is a specific
reference to the inspection reports and the other materials,
which were directed to be given to the Respondents therein.
2 Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. (1973) 3 All ER 54 (HL)
11
The only exception that was carved out by this Court is in
paragraph 77 of the judgment, particularly, information which
has a bearing on the security of the State etc. We are not
persuaded to accept the submission of Mr. Gupta that the
judgment dated 16.12.2015 requires reconsideration as we
cannot consider the said submission while deciding the
contempt petitions. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, judgment was reserved in this case on 02.04.2019. The
new disclosure policy was uploaded on the RBI website on
12.04.2019. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, learned counsel for the
petitioner is right in submitting that the new policy which
replaces the disclosure policy dated 30.11.2016 directs various
departments not to disclose information that was directed to be
given by the judgment of this Court on 16.12.2015. The
Respondents, in our opinion, have committed contempt of this
Court by exempting disclosure of material that was directed to
be given by this Court. In all fairness, Mr. Gupta has submitted
that the disclosure policy shall be deleted from the website.
9. We do not agree with Mr. Gupta that a contempt petition is
maintainable only at the behest of a party to the judgment. The
directions issued by this Court are general in nature and any
12
violation of such directions would enable an aggrieved party to
file a contempt petition.
3
10. Though we could have taken a serious view of the
Respondents continuing to violate the directions issued by this
Court, we give them a last opportunity to withdraw the
disclosure policy insofar as it contains exemptions which are
contrary to the directions issued by this Court. The Respondents
are dutybound to furnish all information relating to inspection
reports and other material apart from the material that was
exempted in para 77 of the judgment. Any further violation shall
be viewed seriously by this Court.
11. The contempt petitions are disposed of with the above
directions.
..…................................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
..…................................J.
[M.R. SHAH]
New Delhi,
April 26th 2019
3 Priya Gupta v. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, (2013) 11 SCC 404
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Contempt Petition (C) No.928 of 2016
In
(Transfer Case (C) No.95 of 2015)
GIRISH MITTAL
.... Petitioner
Versus
PARVATI V. SUNDARAM & ANR.
…. Respondent (s)
With
Contempt Petition (C) No.412 of 2016
In
(Transfer Case (C) No.96 of 2015)
And
Contempt Petition (C) No.59 of 2017
In
(Transfer Case (C) No.95 of 2015)
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The three Contempt Petitions are filed complaining of
wilful and deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by
this Court in the judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Transfer Case
(Civil) No.96 of 2015.
2
2. The subject matter of the judgment in Reserve Bank of
India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry1 is whether the information sought
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘RTI Act’) can be denied by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI)
and the other banks on the ground of economic interest,
commercial confidence, fiduciary relationship or public interest.
The facts of all the 11 Writ Petitions which were transferred to
this Court are similar. The information that was sought by the
Respondents in the transfer cases was refused on the ground that
there was a fiduciary relationship between the RBI and the other
banks, and hence, the information cannot be disclosed in view of
the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act. In
all the cases that were transferred to this Court, the Central
Information Commissioner directed the RBI to disclose the
information sought for by the Respondents in the transfer cases.
The RBI assailed the orders passed by the Central Information
Commission by filing Writ Petitions in the High Courts which
were transferred to this Court and decided by the judgment
dated 16.12.2015. In the said judgment dated 16.12.2015, this
Court held that the Right to Information Act, 2005 overrides all
earlier laws in order to achieve its objective and the only
1 2016 (3) SCC 525
3
exceptions to access to information were those which were
contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act. The argument of the RBI
that the information sought for by the Respondents therein was
rightly refused on the ground of fiduciary relationship, was
rejected by this Court. It was observed by this Court that there
is no fiduciary relationship between the RBI and the financial
institutions and by attaching an additional ‘fiduciary’ label to the
statutory duty, regulatory authorities have intentionally or
unintentionally created an in terrorem effect. This Court further
emphasized that RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interests
of the public-at-large, the depositors and the country’s economy
and the banking sector. This Court was also of the opinion that
the RBI should act with transparency and not hide information
that might embarrass the individual banks and that the RBI is
dutybound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and
disclose the information sought by the Respondents therein. The
submission made on behalf of the RBI that the disclosure would
hurt the economic interests of the country was found to be totally
misconceived. While referring to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, this
Court was of the opinion that the intent of the Legislature was to
make available to the general public such information which had
4
been obtained by the public authorities from private bodies. On
the basis of the above observations, it was held that the RBI is
liable to provide information regarding inspection reports and
other documents to the general public.
3. Being alive to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, under which
information can be denied to the public to guard national
security, sovereignty, national economic interest and relations
with foreign states etc. this Court observed that not all the
information that the Government generates shall be given to the
public. Matters of national economic interest, disclosure of
information about currency or exchange rates, interest rates,
taxes, the regulation or supervision of banking, insurance and
other financial institutions, proposals for expenditure or
borrowing and foreign investments could in some cases harm
the national economy, particularly, if released prematurely.
However, lower-level economic and financial information like
contracts and departmental budgets should not be withheld
under this exemption, according to this Court in the judgment
dated 16.12.2015. On the basis of the above findings, the
transfer cases filed by the RBI were dismissed and the orders
passed by the Central Information Commission were upheld.
5
Contempt Petition (C) No.412 of 2016
4. The Petitioner filed an application dated 12.10.2010
seeking information from the RBI regarding the loss to the nation
in the foreign derivative contract cases. According to him, there
was a loss of Rs 32,000/- crores. The Petitioner also sought for a
bank-wise breakup of the mark-to-market (MTM) losses. In all,
the Petitioner sought information for 10 queries in his
application. No reply was given to query numbers 1, 2, 9 and 10.
The Appellate Authority under the RTI Act directed the RBI to
provide information for queries 2, 9 and 10. Incomplete
information was given for queries 2, 9 and 10 according to the
Petitioner. The Central Information Commission directed the RBI
to furnish information in respect of queries 1, 2, 9 and 10. In
obedience to the direction issued by the Central Information
Commission, RBI furnished information for queries 2, 9, 10.
However, the RBI filed a Writ Petition in the High Court
aggrieved by the directions issued by the Central Information
Commission qua query No.1. After the judgment of this Court
on 16.12.2015, RBI provided the information for query No.1.
Query No. 1 pertained to information regarding the market
6
losses on account of currency derivatives to the tune of 32,000/-
crores as stated by the RBI in an affidavit filed before the Orissa
High Court. The Petitioner sought a bank-wise breakup of the
MTM losses. The reply given by the RBI was that there was no
reference to losses of more than 32,000/- crores on account of
currency derivatives in the affidavit filed by RBI in Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 344 of 2009 in the High Court of Orissa. The
relevant paragraph of the affidavit filed in High Court of Orissa
was also furnished to the Respondent. Not satisfied with the said
information and being convinced that the RBI was intentionally
withholding information in spite of the directions issued by this
Court, this Contempt Petition is filed.
Contempt Petition (C) No.59 of 2017
5. The Petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act
seeking details of the Show Cause Notices and fines imposed by
the RBI on various banks. The information was not disclosed by
the RBI by claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(a), (d) and (e)
of the RTI Act on the ground that the disclosure would affect the
economic interest of the country, the competitive position of the
banks, and that the information cannot be disclosed by the RBI as
7
it received the same in a fiduciary capacity. The RBI uploaded a
Disclosure Policy on 30.11.2016 on its website by which the
Public Information Officers were directed not to disclose
virtually all kinds of information. The Petitioner has filed the
above contempt case aggrieved by the disclosure policy dated
30.11.2016, which according to him, is in direct contravention of
the directions issued by this Court by its judgment dated
16.12.2015. One of the exemptions in the disclosure policy
relating to the department of banking regulation was that
information relating to specific supervisory issues emanating
from inspection or scrutiny reports received from other
supervisory departments are exempted from disclosure. Similar
exemption was given to the inspection reports falling within the
purview of the ‘department of banking supervision’. Any
information obtained from/submitted by banks/Financial
Institutions and held by the RBI in a fiduciary capacity was also
exempted from disclosure. The learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the exemptions from disclosure
mentioned in the disclosure policy are contrary to the directions
issued by this Court in its judgment dated 16.12.2015.
8
Contempt Petition (C) No.928 of 2016
6. The Petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act on
18.12.2015 seeking information relating to the inspection reports
of ICICI bank, AXIS bank, HDFC bank and State Bank of India
from 01.04.2011 to the date of filing of the application. The
Petitioner sought further information relating to the Sahara
Group of Companies and Bank of Rajasthan. The information
sought by the Petitioner was not given by the Central Public
Information Officer of the RBI in view of the exemption from
disclosure under Section 8(1)(a) and (b) as the disclosure was
not in economic interest of the State, and would adversely affect
the competitive position of the third party. Though the Petitioner
was not a party to the judgment of this Court dated 16.12.2015,
he filed the contempt petition as non-furnishing the information
that he sought for was in contravention of the directions issued
by this court by its judgment dated 16.12.2015.
7. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the contemnors made a valiant effort to impress upon us that the
judgment of this court dated 16.12.2015 needs reconsideration.
He submitted that there is no intention on the part of the
Respondents to disobey the directions given by this Court in the
9
judgment dated 16.12.2015. In respect of Contempt Petition (C)
No. 412 of 2016, he referred to the relevant material to submit
that the only query which remained to be answered by the RBI
was query No.1. After the judgment of this Court, the
information sought for was given to the Petitioner on 18.02.2016.
A contempt petition is not maintainable merely because the
Petitioner is not satisfied with the information given to him.
According to Mr. Gupta it is open to the Petitioner to file another
application for further information if he is of the opinion that the
entire information sought by him was not furnished. In any
event, according to Mr. Gupta, the Contempt Petition is notmaintainable. In so far as the disclosure policy dated 30.11.2016
is concerned, he argued that the said policy is superseded and
no complaint can be filed against the implementation of the
disclosure policy as the said policy does not exist. Moreover,
Mr. Gupta submitted that issuance of the said policy cannot be
held to be a violation of the directions given in the judgment
dated 16.12.2015 inviting a contempt petition. If the Petitioner is
aggrieved by the policy, he has to challenge the policy by
resorting to the remedies available to him in law. He informed
us that the policy dated 30.11.2016 is replaced by another policy
10
which would be put on the website of the RBI. Mr. Gupta
strenuously submitted that a leeway was given to the RBI in the
matter of providing information on certain issues that were
mentioned in paragraph 77 of the judgment. He referred to the
said paragraph to support the disclosure policy. He finally
submitted that if this Court feels that the policy is in violation of
the directions issued by this Court, it would be taken off the
website. The main submission made by Mr. Gupta is that any
application filed under the RTI Act shall have to be dealt with
separately on its own merits.
8. There is an element of public policy in punishing civil
contempt, since administration of justice would be undermined if
the order of any Court of law could be disregarded with
impunity.
2 There is no ambiguity in the judgment of this Court
dated 16.12.2015. After holding that there is no fiduciary
relationship between the RBI and the other banks, this Court
stressed the importance of the RTI Act, and held that it is in the
interest of the general public that the information sought for by
the Respondents therein has to be furnished. There is a specific
reference to the inspection reports and the other materials,
which were directed to be given to the Respondents therein.
2 Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. (1973) 3 All ER 54 (HL)
11
The only exception that was carved out by this Court is in
paragraph 77 of the judgment, particularly, information which
has a bearing on the security of the State etc. We are not
persuaded to accept the submission of Mr. Gupta that the
judgment dated 16.12.2015 requires reconsideration as we
cannot consider the said submission while deciding the
contempt petitions. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, judgment was reserved in this case on 02.04.2019. The
new disclosure policy was uploaded on the RBI website on
12.04.2019. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, learned counsel for the
petitioner is right in submitting that the new policy which
replaces the disclosure policy dated 30.11.2016 directs various
departments not to disclose information that was directed to be
given by the judgment of this Court on 16.12.2015. The
Respondents, in our opinion, have committed contempt of this
Court by exempting disclosure of material that was directed to
be given by this Court. In all fairness, Mr. Gupta has submitted
that the disclosure policy shall be deleted from the website.
9. We do not agree with Mr. Gupta that a contempt petition is
maintainable only at the behest of a party to the judgment. The
directions issued by this Court are general in nature and any
12
violation of such directions would enable an aggrieved party to
file a contempt petition.
3
10. Though we could have taken a serious view of the
Respondents continuing to violate the directions issued by this
Court, we give them a last opportunity to withdraw the
disclosure policy insofar as it contains exemptions which are
contrary to the directions issued by this Court. The Respondents
are dutybound to furnish all information relating to inspection
reports and other material apart from the material that was
exempted in para 77 of the judgment. Any further violation shall
be viewed seriously by this Court.
11. The contempt petitions are disposed of with the above
directions.
..…................................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
..…................................J.
[M.R. SHAH]
New Delhi,
April 26th 2019
3 Priya Gupta v. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, (2013) 11 SCC 404
