TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ram Swarup Sharma, AOR Ms. Praveena Gautam, AOR Mr. Pawan Shukla, Adv. Mr. Aman Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raja Ram, Adv. Mr. Aman Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. M/s. Lex Regis Law Offices, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Misha, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Kant, Adv. Ms. Mahima Sareen, Adv. Moulshree Shukla, Adv. Mr. Eklavya Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv. Mr. Krishnan Singhal, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kuldeep S. Parihar, Adv. Mr. H. S. Parihar, AOR Ms. Ikshita Parihar, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi, AOR Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR O R D E R B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. For the reasons stated in I.A. No.68597 of 2021 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1159 of 2019 for Impleadment, the same is allowed. 2. This batch of writ petitions has been filed by various Banks including private banks, inter alia, challenging the action of the respondent­Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "RBI") in directing disclosure of confidential and sensitive information pertaining to their affairs, their employees ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ak and another (1988) 2 SCC 602 to contend that the judicial proceedings in this Court are not subject to the writ jurisdiction thereof. 9. Mr. Prashant Bhushan further submitted that this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Barat vs. Secretary, Indian Tea Association and others (2001) 5 SCC 42 has also held that the validity of an order passed by this Court itself cannot be subject to writ jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Mr. Bhushan also relied on the judgments of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in the cases of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and another vs. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India (1996) 3 SCC 114, Mohd. Aslam vs. Union of India and others (1996) 2 SCC 749 and Union of India and others vs. Major S.P. Sharma and others (2014) 6 SCC 351 and the judgment of a Five­Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and another (2002) 4 SCC 388 to buttress his submissions. 11. Mr. Bhushan further submitted that in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra), several Miscellaneous Applications were filed on behalf of the Banks for impleadment. As such, the judgment delivered in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra) is after consideration of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....right. 15. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel, relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of A.R. Antulay (supra) in support of the proposition that no man should suffer because of the mistake of the Court. He submits that the rules of procedure are the handmaidens of justice and not the mistress of justice. He relies on the maxim "ex debito justitiae". He further relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjay Singh and another vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another (2007) 3 SCC 720 in support of the submission that the petition would be tenable. 16. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the petitioners herein are private banks and not a public authority as defined under the RTI Act. He relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and others vs. State of Kerala and others (2013) 16 SCC 82 in that regard. He submitted that RBI's Inspection Reports in respect of the inspection carried out under Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 are so confidential that they cannot even be provided to the Directors individually. He relies on the communication issued b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court or tribunal or other authority shall compel the Bank to produce or to give inspection of any statement or other material obtained by the Bank under any provisions of this Chapter. He submits that this provision has not been noticed in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra). 21. It is submitted on behalf of all the writ petitioners/Banks that what is under challenge is the action of the RBI compelling the petitioners to disclose certain information which itself is exempted under the provisions of the RBI Act. It is submitted that various other special enactments specifically prohibit such information to be disclosed. It is submitted that since the RBI's directions are issued in pursuance to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra) and Girish Mittal (supra), the petitioners cannot approach the High Court and the only remedy that is available to the petitioners is by way of the present writ petitions. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners/Banks that this Court in Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra) does not notice the judgment of this Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bout the jurisdiction of superior courts of plenary jurisdiction to pass orders like the impugned order are allowed to be canvassed in writ proceedings under Article 32, logically, it would be difficult to make a valid distinction between the orders passed by the High Courts inter­partes, and those which are not inter­partes in the sense that they bind strangers to the proceedings. Therefore, in our opinion, having regard to the fact that the impugned order has been passed by a superior court of record in the exercise of its inherent powers, the question about the existence of the said jurisdiction as well as the validity or propriety of the order cannot be raised in writ proceedings taken out by the petitioners for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 32." [emphasis supplied] 23. It could thus be seen that the Nine­Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through P.B. Gajendragadkar, CJ., categorically held that the impugned orders could not affect the fundamental rights of the petitioners. It has further been held that since the order was passed in the proceedings pending before the High Court, the correctness of the impugned order could be challenged only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Article 32. 25. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and another (supra), on which Mr. Prashant Bhushan placed reliance, is concerned, this Court in the said case was considering therein a challenge to the correctness of the decision on merits after the appeal as well as review petition were dismissed. 26. In the case of Mohd. Aslam (supra), this Court held that Article 32 of the Constitution was not available to assail the correctness of a decision on merits or to claim reconsideration. It, however, considered the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the judgment in the case of Manohar Joshi vs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and another (1996) 1 SCC 169 was in conflict with the Constitution Bench judgement of this Court in the case of S.R. Bommai and others vs. Union of India and others (1994) 3 SCC 1. This Court after considering the submissions found that the opinion so expressed was misplaced. 27. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of Major S.P. Sharma and others (supra) is concerned, in the said case, the first round of litigation arising out of termination of respondent­employee had reached finality upt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lines as to adapt and adjust to the changing conditions of the society, the ultimate objective being to dispense justice. In the recent years there is a discernible shift in the approach of the final courts in favour of rendering justice on the facts presented before them, without abrogating but bypassing the principle of finality of the judgment. In Union of India v. Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754] Pathak, C.J. speaking for the Constitution Bench aptly observed: (SCC pp. 766­67, para 10) "10. But like all principles evolved by man for the regulation of the social order, the doctrine of binding precedent is circumscribed in its governance by perceptible limitations, limitations arising by reference to the need for readjustment in a changing society, a readjustment of legal norms demanded by a changed social context. This need for adapting the law to new urges in society brings home the truth of the Holmesian aphorism that 'the life of the law has not been logic it has been experience' (Oliver Wendell Holmes : The Common Law, p. 5), and again when he declared in another study (Oliver Wendell Holmes : Common Carriers and the Common Law, (1943) 9 Curr LT 387, 388) that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Court, to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, may reconsider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power." [emphasis supplied] 30. This Court in the aforesaid case held that the concern of this Court for rendering justice in a cause is not less important than the principle of finality of its judgment. The Court has to balance ensuring certainty and finality of a judgment of the Court of last resort on one hand and dispensing justice on reconsideration of a judgment on the valid grounds on the other hand. This Court has observed that though Judges of the highest court do their best, yet situations may arise, in the rarest of the rare cases, which would require reconsideration of a final judgment to set right miscarriage of justice complained of. It has been held that in such a case it would not only be proper but also obligatory both legally and morally to rectify the error. This Court further held that to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, the Court may reconsider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power. 31. This Court in the case of A.R. Antulay (supra), speaking through Sabyasachi M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rong lies within the human machinery of administration of justice, that wrong must be remedied. 33. Ranganath Misra, J., in his concurrent opinion, observed thus: "102. This being the apex court, no litigant has any opportunity of approaching any higher forum to question its decisions. Lord Buckmaster in Montreal Street Railway Co. v. Normadin [1917 AC 170] (sic) stated: All rules of court are nothing but provisions intended to secure proper administration of justice. It is, therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose. This Court in State of Gujarat v. Ramprakash P. Puri [(1969) 3 SCC 156 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 29 : (1970) 2 SCR 875] reiterated the position by saying [SCC p. 159 : SCC (Cri) p. 31, para 8] Procedure has been described to be a handmaid and not a mistress of law, intended to subserve and facilitate the cause of justice and not to govern or obstruct it. Like all rules of procedure, this rule demands a construction which would promote this cause Once judicial satisfaction is reached that the direction was not open to be made and it is accepted as a mistake of the court, it is not onl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccepted as a mistake of the court, it is not only appropriate but also the duty of the court to rectify the mistake by exercising its inherent powers. It has been held that, to err is human, and the Courts including the Apex Court are no exception. 35. This Court in the case of Sanjay Singh and another (supra) has observed thus: "10. The contention of the Commission also overlooks the fundamental difference between challenge to the final order forming part of the judgment and challenge to the ratio decidendi of the judgment. Broadly speaking, every judgment of superior courts has three segments, namely, (i) the facts and the point at issue; (ii) the reasons for the decision; and (iii) the final order containing the decision. The reasons for the decision or the ratio decidendi is not the final order containing the decision. In fact, in a judgment of this Court, though the ratio decidendi may point to a particular result, the decision (final order relating to relief) may be different and not a natural consequence of the ratio decidendi of the judgment. This may happen either on account of any subsequent event or the need to mould the relief to do complete justice in the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case. It has been held that if the Court is satisfied that the issue raised in the later petition requires consideration and in that context, the earlier decision requires re­examination, the Court can certainly proceed to examine the matter or refer the matter to a larger Bench, if the earlier decision is not of a smaller Bench. This Court, therefore, specifically rejected the contention that a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was barred or not maintainable with reference to an issue which was the subject matter of an earlier decision. 37. In the present case, admittedly, the writ petitioners/Banks were not parties in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra). Though the Miscellaneous Applications filed by HDFC Bank and others for recall of the judgment and order in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry (supra) were rejected by this Court vide order dated 28th April 2021, this Court in the said order specifically observed thus: "The dismissal of these applications shall not prevent the applicants to pursue other remedies available to them in law." 38. It is thus clear that this Court did not foreclose the right of the petitioners/Banks to pursue other rem....