2019 INSC 0423 1 Non -Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION C ontempt Petition (C) No.928 of 2016 In (Transfer Case (C) No. 95 of 201 5) GIRISH MITTAL .... Pe titioner Versus PARVATI V. SUNDARAM & ANR. … . Respondent (s) With C ontempt Pet ition (C) No. 412 of 2016 In (Transfer Case (C) No. 96 of 201 5) And C ontempt Petition (C) No. 59 of 201 7 In (Transfer Case (C) No. 95 of 201 5) J U D G M E N T L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. 1. The three Contempt Petitio ns are filed complaining of wil ful an d deliberat e disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 16.12.2015 in T ransfer Case (C ivil ) No.96 of 20 15. 2 2. The subject matter of the judgment in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry 1 is wh ether the info rmation soug ht under the Right to I nformation Act, 2005 (here inafter referred to as the ‘RTI Act ’) can be denied by the R eserve Bank of India (RBI) and the other banks on the groun d of economic interest, commercial confidence, fiduciary relat ionship or public interest . The facts of all the 11 W rit Petition s which were t ransferred 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 relatio nship b et w een 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 tra nsferred to this C ourt , the C entral Information Commissioner dir ected the RBI to disclose the info rmation sought for by the R espondents in the transfer cases . The RBI assailed the orders passed by the C entral Information Commission by filing W rit Peti tion s in the H igh Courts which were transferred to this Court and deci ded by the judgment dated 16 .12.2015. In the said judgment d ated 16.12.2015, this C ourt 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 w hich were contained in Secti on 8 of the RTI Act . The argument of the RBI that the information sought for by the R espondents therein was rightly refused on the ground of fiduciary re lationship , was rejected by this Court . It was observed by this Court that the re is no fiduciary rel ationship betw een the RBI and the financial inst itutions and by attaching an additional ‘fiduciary’ label to the statutory duty, regulatory authorities have intentionally or unintentionally cr eated an in terrorem effect. This C ourt further emphasized that RBI has a sta tutory duty to uphold the interests of the public -at -large, the depositors and the country’s economy and the banking sector . This C ourt was also of the opinion that the RBI should act with transparency and not hide informat ion that might emba rrass the ind ividual banks and that the RBI is duty bound to comp ly with the provisions of the RTI Act and disclose the information sought by the Respondents therein. The sub mission made on behalf of the RBI that the disclosure would hu rt the economic inte rests of the country was f ou nd 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 wh ich had 4 been obtaine d by the publ ic authorities from private bod ies . On the basis of the above observations, it was held that the RBI is liable to provide information re garding inspection reports and other documents to the general public. 3. Being alive t o Sect io n 8(1) of the RTI Act , unde r whic h information can be denied to the public to guard national security , sovereignty, national economic interest and relations w ith foreign states etc. this Court observed that not all the information that the Government generates shall be given to the public. Matters of nation al economic interest, disclosure of information about currency or exchange rates, interest rates, taxes, the regulation or supervision of banking, insurance and other financial institutions, proposal s for expenditure or borrowing and foreign investments c ould 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 with held under this ex emption , acco rding 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 C entral Information Commission were upheld. 5 C ontempt Petition (C) No. 412 of 2016 4. The Petitioner filed an application dated 12.10.2010 seeking info rmation from the RBI re garding the loss to the nation in the for eign derivative contract case s. A ccording to him, there was a loss of Rs 32,000 /- crores. The Petitioner also soug ht 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 inform ation for queries 2, 9 and 10. Incomplete information was given for queries 2, 9 and 10 according to the Petitioner . The C entral Information Commission directed the RBI to furnish info rm ation in respect of queries 1, 2, 9 and 10. In obedienc e to the dire ction issued by the Central Information Commission , RBI furnished information for queries 2, 9, 10 . However , the RBI filed a W rit Petition in the H igh Court aggrieved by the direction s issued by the C entral Information C ommiss ion qua query No. 1. After the judgment of this Court on 16.12.2015, RBI provided the infor mation for query No. 1. Query No. 1 pertained to info rmation regarding the market 6 losses on a ccount of currency derivatives to the tune of 32 ,000/ - crores as st ated by the RBI in a n affidavit f iled before the O rissa High C ourt . 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 a cco unt of currency deri vatives in the affi davit filed b y RBI in W rit Petition (Cr iminal ) No. 344 of 2009 in the H igh Court of Orissa. The relevant para graph of the affidavit filed in H igh C ourt of Orissa was also furnished to the Respondent . Not satisfied w ith the said info rm ation and being con vinced that t he RBI was intentionally withholding info rmation in spite of the direction s issued by this C ourt , this C ontempt Petition is filed. C ontempt Petition (C) No. 59 of 201 7 5. The P etitioner filed an application under the RTI Act seekin g details of t he S how Cause Notices and fines imposed by the RBI on various banks. The info rmation was not disclosed by the RBI by claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(a), (d) and (e) of the RTI Act on the gr oun d that the disclosure would affect t he economic interest of th e countr y, the competitive position of the banks , and that the info rmation 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 I nformatio n Off icers we re directed not to disclose virtually all kinds of information. The P etitioner has filed the above contempt case aggr ieved by the disclosure policy d ated 30.11.2016, which a ccording to him , is in direct contravention of the direction s issued by th is Court by its judgment dated 16.1 2.2015. One of the exemptions in the disclosure policy relating to the department of banking regulation was that info rmation relating to specific supervisory issues emanating from inspection or scrutiny repo rts recei ved f rom othe r supervisory departments are exem pted from disclosure. Similar exemption was given to the inspection reports falling within the purview of the ‘department of banking supervision’. Any info rmation obtained from/submitted by banks/F ina ncial Ins titu tions and held by the RBI in a fiduciary capacity was also exempted f rom 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 C ontempt Petition (C) No.928 of 2016 6. The P etitioner filed an appl ication 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 .20 11 to the date of filing of the application. The Petitioner sought further information relating to the Sahara Group of C ompanies and Bank of Rajasthan. The info rmation sought by the P et itioner was not given by the C entra l Public Informa tion O fficer 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 thi rd party. Though the P etitioner was n ot a par ty to the judgment of this Court dated 16.12.2015, he filed the contempt petition as non -furnishing the info rmation that he sought for was in contravention of the directions issued by this court by its judgment d ated 16.12.2015. 7. Mr . Jaideep Gu pta, learned Senior C ounsel 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 Respondent s to disobey th e dir ections given by this Court in the 9 judg ment dated 16.12.2015. In re spect of C ontempt Petition (C) No. 412 of 20 16, 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 jud gment of this Court , the info rmation sought for was given to the P etitioner on 18.02.2016. A contempt petiti on is not maintainable merely because the Petitioner is not satisfied with the info rmation given to him. According to Mr . Gupta it is open to the Petitione r to file an other application for further infor mation if he is of the opinion that the entire information sought by him was not furnished . In any event, according to Mr . Gupta, the C on tempt Petition is not - m aintainable . In so far as the disc losu re policy dated 30.11.2016 is conc erned , 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 no t exist. Moreover, Mr. Gupta submitted that issuance of t he said polic y cannot be hel d to be a violation of the directions given in the judgment dated 16.12.2015 inviting a contempt petition. If the P etitioner is aggrieved by the policy, he has to challenge the policy by resorting to the remedies available to hi m in law. He informed us that the policy dated 30.11.201 6 is replaced by another policy 10 which would be put on the website of the RBI. Mr . Gupta strenuously sub m itted that a leeway was given to the RBI in the matter of providing information o n certain issu es that were mentioned in para graph 77 of the judgment. He re ferred to the said para graph to support the disclosure policy. He finally sub mitted that if this C ourt feels that the policy is in violation of the directions issued by this C ourt , it would be taken off the website. The main subm ission made by Mr . Gupt a is that any application f iled 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 administ ration o f justice wou ld be undermined if the order of any Court of la w could be disregarded with impunity .2 There is no ambiguity i n 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 C ourt stressed the importance of the RTI Act , and held that it is in the interest of the general public that the info rmation sought for by the R espondents therein has to be furnished. There is a specific refer ence to the inspection reports and the other mat erial s, which were directed to be given to the R espon de nts 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 para graph 77 of the judgment, particularly, information which has a bearing on the security of the State etc. We ar e not persuad ed to accept the submission of Mr . Gupta that th e jud gment d ated 16.12.2015 requires reconsideration as we cannot consider the said submission while deciding the contempt petitions. After hearing the l earne d counsel for the parties, ju dgment w as reserved i n this case on 02.04.2019. The new disclosure p olicy 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 d ated 30 .11.2016 directs va rious departments not to disclose infor matio n 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 sub mitted 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 na ture 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 Resp ondent s continuing to violate the d irections iss ued by this C ourt , we give them a last opportunity to wi thdraw the disclosure policy insofar as it contains exemptions which are contrary to the directions issued by this Court . The R espondent s are duty bound to furnish all info rmation relating to inspectio n reports and other material apart fro m the mater ial 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 26 th 201 9 3 Priya Gupta v. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, ( 2013 ) 11 SCC 404