Recovery measures and Article 21 privacy: bank cannot publish loanees' photographs in newspapers without statutory authority.

A bank may pursue recovery only through measures expressly authorised by law, such as civil proceedings, SARFAESI enforcement, or other lawful revenue recovery processes. The text states that neither the SARFAESI Act nor the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules authorise publication of loanees' photographs in newspapers as a recovery device, and RBI's wilful defaulter framework is limited to credit information channels. It further states that such publication would violate the right to dignity and privacy under Article 21, and that contractual terms cannot validate a fundamental rights breach. The threatened newspaper publication is therefore described as lacking statutory sanction and being unlawful.

---

---

Issues: Whether a bank can threaten to publish the photographs of defaulting loanees in newspapers for recovery of dues, and whether such action is legally sanctioned and consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A bank may recover dues through measures authorised by the governing statutes and rules, including civil proceedings, SARFAESI proceedings, and revenue recovery measures where applicable. However, none of those enactments authorise publication of a loanee's photograph in newspapers as a recovery device. Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 do not permit such action, and the RBI's circular framework on wilful defaulters permits reporting and dissemination through credit information channels, not newspaper publication of photographs. The proposed publication would also intrude upon the loanees' right to live with dignity and right to privacy under Article 21, and contractual clauses cannot validate an action that violates fundamental rights. The absence of legislative sanction makes the threatened action arbitrary and illegal.

Conclusion: The bank has no lawful authority to publish the photographs of the loanees in newspapers for recovery of dues, and the threatened action is unconstitutional and impermissible.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, and the bank was restrained from publishing the petitioners' photographs while remaining free to pursue recovery only by methods authorised by law.

Ratio Decidendi: A public authority may recover dues only by a method expressly authorised by law, and a recovery measure that has no statutory sanction and infringes the right to life with dignity and the right to privacy under Article 21 is unlawful.

---