HDFC Bank Limited & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
RTI/privacy and attempt to question Supreme Court decision under Article 32.
Result: Quashed / set aside. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: See packaged judgment
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- RTI/privacy and attempt to question Supreme Court decision under Article 32.
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
the Banks (writ petitioners herein) for recall of the judgment
behalf of the writ petitioners/Banks submit that though M.A.
of the present petitioners in filing the present petitions.
petitioners/Banks that the right to privacy has been said to be
that the petitioners herein are private banks and not a public
Appellant / assessee submissions
6. We have heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel
Counsels and Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, learned counsel appearing
7. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel, submitted that
submitted that this Court, in the case of Girish Mittal vs.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
6. We have heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel
24. It could thus be seen that this Court held that it would be
Court held that though the words used in Article 32 are wide,
26. In the case of Mohd. Aslam (supra), this Court held that
justitiae has been emphasized. This Court held that no man
Operative decision and relief
Where substantial injustice would otherwise result, the Court has, in Their Lordships' opinion, an inherent power to set aside its own judgments of condemnation so as to let in bona fide claims by parties...
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 matter. It is the ratio decidendi of a judgment and not the final order in the judgment, which forms a precedent. The term “judgment” and “decision” are used, rather loosely, to refer to the entire judgment or the final order or the ratio decidendi of a judgment. Rupa Ashok Hurra [(2002) 4 SCC 388] is of course, an authority for the proposition that a petition under Article 32 would not be maintainable to challenge or set aside or quash the final order contained in a judgment of this Court. It does not lay down a proposition that the ratio decidendi of any…
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses RTI/privacy and attempt to question Supreme Court decision under Article 32. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with rti/privacy and attempt to question supreme court decision under article 32. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; official primary replacement pending |
| Repository release | HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in HDFC Bank Limited & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors?
RTI/privacy and attempt to question Supreme Court decision under Article 32.
Which facts matter most?
the Banks (writ petitioners herein) for recall of the judgment
What did the Supreme Court of India decide?
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 matter. It is the…
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses RTI/privacy and attempt to question Supreme Court decision under Article 32. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
The exact provisions identified in the packaged judgment and their version applicable to the relevant period.
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - RTI/privacy and attempt to question Supreme Court decision under Article 32 - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- See the statutory provisions identified in the packaged judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- Bridge India Fund, New Delhi v. ACIT - ITAT Mumbai - I Bench
- SECUNDRABAD CLUB VS. C.I.T.-V - Supreme Court of India
- PCIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF - Court / Tribunal to be verified
Different outcome / possible distinction
- ACIT v. Ashok W. Wesavkar - Operative order controls
- ACIT CIR 6(1) VS ASAHI INFRA & PROJECTS LIMITED - Remanded / restored
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.