Article 21 privacy may yield to lawful SARFAESI recovery measures and statutory appeal remedies.

Article 21 privacy is not absolute and may yield to lawful statutory authority and countervailing public interest. In the SARFAESI context, the proposed publication of a defaulting borrower's photograph in newspapers was treated as a permissible recovery measure and not an unlawful invasion of privacy. The text also states that writ relief was inappropriate where the challenge arose from SARFAESI enforcement steps and an effective statutory appeal was available, so the writ petition was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a bank could threaten publication of the defaulting borrower's photograph in newspapers for recovery of dues without violating the borrower's right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the impugned action arose from measures taken under the SARFAESI Act and an appellate remedy was available.

Issue (i): Whether a bank could threaten publication of the defaulting borrower's photograph in newspapers for recovery of dues without violating the borrower's right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The right to privacy and dignity is recognised as part of the right to life under Article 21, but it is not absolute. It must yield where a countervailing public interest exists or where lawful authority permits disclosure. The statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act authorises measures for possession and sale of secured assets, and the prescribed enforcement procedure contemplates public notice to the borrower and the public in general. The judgment also treated the bank's disclosure interest as supported by the right to information framework and larger public interest, and held that the proposed publication did not amount to an unlawful invasion of privacy.

Conclusion: The threat to publish the photographs was held to be lawful and not violative of Article 21.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the impugned action arose from measures taken under the SARFAESI Act and an appellate remedy was available.

Analysis: A writ of mandamus lies to compel performance of a statutory or public duty, not to restrain lawful exercise of such duty. The challenge was directed against a notice issued under the SARFAESI framework, which itself provides a statutory appeal under Section 17. In view of the availability of that remedy, the invocation of writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the circumstances.

Final Conclusion: The bank's proposed recovery measure was upheld, and the challenge to it failed both on merits and on maintainability.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to privacy under Article 21 is qualified and may be restricted by statutory authority and larger public interest, and where an effective statutory remedy exists, writ relief will ordinarily not lie against SARFAESI recovery .

---