Bank secrecy is qualified, not absolute, where disclosure is needed for legal compliance and public interest.

Bank secrecy is a qualified duty, not an absolute bar to disclosure. Section 52 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 imposes confidentiality, but disclosure may be required by law or justified by recognised exceptions. The text notes that Section 6 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 did not apply because there was no pending proceeding requiring inspection for that purpose. Even so, where account particulars were sought to comply with an earlier judicial direction and to assess possible gainful employment affecting back wages, the public interest and legal necessity supported disclosure. A writ court may direct disclosure in an appropriate case where a prima facie basis is shown and notice is issued to the bank.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bank could refuse disclosure of the customer's account particulars on the ground of statutory secrecy, or whether the writ court could direct disclosure where the information was sought to comply with a prior judicial direction and to ascertain possible gainful employment affecting liability to pay back wages.

Analysis: Section 52 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 imposes a duty of fidelity and secrecy on the bank, but that duty is not absolute and yields where disclosure is required by law or where banking practice recognises an exception. The Court held that the case did not fall within Section 6 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, because there was no pending main proceeding making inspection necessary for the purpose of that proceeding. However, the Court found that the matter involved public funds of a public sector undertaking and compliance with an earlier judicial direction concerning back wages, so the bank's private duty of secrecy had to give way to the public interest in obtaining the information. The Court also noted that a writ court may, in an appropriate case, direct disclosure of information if a prima facie case is shown and notice is issued to the bank.

Conclusion: The bank could not claim absolute secrecy, and the writ petition was maintainable to the extent of seeking the account details; the bank was bound to furnish the remittance particulars.

Ratio Decidendi: A bank's obligation of secrecy is qualified, not absolute, and may be overridden by a public duty or legal necessity where a prima facie case is made out for disclosure.

---