2015 RBI order: SC flags want for RTI-Right to Privacy steadiness

The Supreme Court on Friday dominated that its 2015 judgment which stated that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is certain by legislation to supply info concerning personal and public banks underneath the Right to Information Act, 2005, “did not take into consideration the aspect of balancing the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy”.

The commentary was made by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar, whereas rejecting preliminary objections to the maintainability of petitions filed by varied banks difficult the RBI path to them to reveal “confidential and sensitive information pertaining to their affairs, their employees and their customers” underneath the RTI Act in compliance of the SC determination.

The bench stated that in view of the 2015 judgment, “the RBI is entitled to issue directions to the petitioners/banks to disclose information even with regard to the individual customers of the Bank” and that “in effect, it may adversely affect the individuals’ fundamental right to privacy”.

The judgement identified that subsequent to the 2015 determination, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the court docket had within the Aadhaar case “held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right”.

It stated “no doubt that the Right to Information is also a fundamental right”, and added that “in case of such a conflict, the Court is required to achieve a sense of balance”.

The bench identified that “although the idea of finality of judgment must be preserved, on the similar time … if the Court finds that the sooner judgment doesn’t lay down an accurate place of legislation, it’s all the time permissible for this Court to rethink the identical and, if vital, to refer it to a bigger Bench.

The banks had contended that the RBI path just isn’t solely opposite to the provisions of the RTI Act, the RBI Act and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, but in addition adversely impacts the Right to Privacy of such banks and their shoppers.

The apex court docket will now hear the case on deserves.