2022 (10) TMI 464 - SC - Indian Laws

Direction for disclosure of confidential and sensitive information pertaining to their affairs, their employees and their customers under the Right to Information Act, 2005 - maintainability of writ petition before the SC - right to privacy as a fundamental right - HELD THAT - having regard to the fact that the order had been passed by a superior court of record in the exercise of its inherent powers, the question about the existence of the said jurisdiction as well as the validity or propriety of the order could not be raised in writ proceedings taken out by the petitioners for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 32. It could thus be seen that this Court held that it would be unreasonable to hold that this Court, under Article 32, could correct the judicial orders on the fanciful hypothesis that High Courts may pass extravagant orders in or in relation to matters pending before them and therefore this Court can correct the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari under Article 32. This Court held that though the words used in Article 32 are wide, the order impugned before it could not be brought within the scope of this Court s jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 32. A Nine Judge Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy and another 2017 (8) TMI 938 - SUPREME COURT has held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. No doubt that the right to information is also a fundamental right. In case of such a conflict, the Court is required to achieve a sense of balance. A perusal of the judgments of this Court cited supra would reveal that it has been held that though the concept of finality of judgment has to be preserved, at the same time, the principle of ex debito justitiae cannot be given a go bye. If the Court finds that the earlier judgment does not lay down a correct position of law, it is always permissible for this Court to reconsider the same and if necessary, to refer it to a larger Bench. It has been held that this being the apex court, no litigant has any opportunity of approaching any higher forum to question its decisions. It has further been held that once a judicial satisfaction is reached that the direction was not open to be made and it is accepted as a mistake of the court, it is not only appropriate but also the duty of the court to rectify the mistake by exercising its inherent powers. It has been held that, to err is human, and the Courts including the Apex Court are no exception. The preliminary objection as raised is not sustainable. The same is rejected. - Writ petition also dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Impleadment of parties.
2. Challenge to RBI's directive on disclosure under the RTI Act.
3. Maintainability of writ petitions challenging Supreme Court's previous judgments.
4. Right to privacy vs. right to information.
5. Judicial review and correction of previous judgments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Impleadment of Parties:
The application for impleadment (I.A. No. 68597 of 2021 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1159 of 2019) was allowed.

2. Challenge to RBI's Directive on Disclosure under the RTI Act:
Various banks filed writ petitions challenging the RBI's directive to disclose confidential information under the RTI Act, arguing that such information is exempt under Section 8 of the RTI Act. The banks contended that the directive violates their right to privacy and is contrary to the provisions of the RBI Act and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

3. Maintainability of Writ Petitions Challenging Supreme Court's Previous Judgments:
The applicant argued that the writ petitions essentially challenge the Supreme Court's final judgment in the case of Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016) and are therefore not maintainable. The applicant cited several judgments, including Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra (1966) and A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak (1988), to support the contention that judicial decisions cannot be corrected under Article 32 of the Constitution.

4. Right to Privacy vs. Right to Information:
The banks argued that the right to privacy, recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017), should be balanced against the right to information. They contended that the RBI's directive to disclose information without considering the right to privacy is flawed.

5. Judicial Review and Correction of Previous Judgments:
The banks cited the principle of ex debito justitiae, emphasizing that no one should suffer due to a court's mistake. They argued that the Supreme Court's judgment in Jayantilal N. Mistry did not consider the right to privacy and thus requires reconsideration. The banks also pointed out that they were not parties to the original judgment and that the Supreme Court, in its order dated 28th April 2021, allowed them to pursue other remedies in law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions is not sustainable. The Court noted that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and that the earlier judgment in Jayantilal N. Mistry did not balance this right against the right to information. The Court found that the petitioners had no other remedy than to approach the Supreme Court to protect the fundamental rights of their customers. Consequently, the applications seeking dismissal of the writ petitions were dismissed.