Publication of defaulters' photographs during recovery proceedings upheld as an incidental measure absent express prohibition.

Under the securitisation recovery regime, a bank may publish the photographs of defaulting borrowers and their directors or guarantors if the measure is taken as part of authorised recovery action and there is no express statutory prohibition. The Bombay High Court noted that the borrowers had defaulted, notice under section 13(2) had been issued, and the bank had considered relevant material through a designated senior officer before deciding to publish. It treated publication of photographs as incidental and consequential to the recovery process, and not ultra vires merely because the Act and Rules do not expressly refer to photographs. The privacy-based challenge therefore failed on the facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bank was entitled, in the facts of the case, to publish the photographs of the petitioners and their directors/guarantors in aid of recovery under the securitisation regime, and whether such action was unlawful or violative of privacy.

Analysis: The petitioners had admittedly defaulted, the secured creditor had already invoked the securitisation process, and notice under section 13(2) had been issued. Rule 8 was treated as recognising the bank's authority to publicise the identity of wilful defaulters, principally to inform the public and to caution prospective purchasers of secured assets. On the facts found, the bank had not acted mechanically; it had considered the material, including allegations of misfeasance and diversion of funds, and the decision to publish photographs was taken by the designated senior officer. The Court also held that there was no express prohibition in the Act or the Rules against such publication, and that what is incidental and consequential to the authorised recovery measures is not to be treated as ultra vires.

Conclusion: The publication of photographs was held permissible in law on the facts of the case, and the challenge founded on illegality and privacy failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute or rule authorises publication of the names and addresses of wilful defaulters for recovery purposes, an incidental measure of publishing photographs is not ultra vires in the absence of an express prohibition, provided the decision is taken on a considered case-specific basis.

---