Girish Mittal v. Parvati V. Sundaram & Anr. (Contempt Petition arising from RBI RTI Disclosure Case)
Background
In its 2015 judgment in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, the Supreme Court had held that the RBI could not refuse to disclose inspection reports and other banking information under the RTI Act by claiming a "fiduciary relationship" with banks, since no such relationship in fact existed. This case combines three separate contempt petitions, including one by a petitioner seeking inspection reports of several major banks, alleging that the RBI continued withholding information even after that 2015 ruling, including by issuing a new internal "Disclosure Policy" in late 2016 that exempted broad categories of information from disclosure.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the RBI's 2015 judgment was unambiguous: it had already rejected the fiduciary-relationship argument and directed disclosure of inspection reports and related material, subject only to the narrow national-security-type exceptions in paragraph 77 of that judgment. The Court found that the RBI's disclosure policy effectively re-created broad exemptions contrary to the Court's own directions, amounting to contempt, and also rejected the RBI's argument that only parties to the original 2015 judgment could bring a contempt petition, holding that general directions of the Court can be enforced by any aggrieved person. Rather than imposing punishment, the Court gave the RBI "a last opportunity" to withdraw the offending disclosure policy, directed it to furnish all information covered by the 2015 judgment (other than what falls under the paragraph 77 exceptions), and warned that any further violation would be viewed seriously, disposing of all three contempt petitions on these terms.
Lesson Learnt
A public authority cannot evade a court's transparency directions by dressing up non-disclosure as an internal "policy", and contempt proceedings to enforce a public-interest ruling like an RTI disclosure order can be brought by any affected citizen, not only by the original parties to the case.