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 not-

maintainable.  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