Skip to main content

Publishing photographs of defaulters in newspapers illegal: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held as arbitrary and illegal the decision of the State Bank of India to publish the photographs of loan defaulters in newspapers.

Allowing writ petitions filed by two defaulters against the SBI notice, the court on Tuesday observed that the threat held out by banks to publish the photographs of defaulters in newspapers lacked legislative sanction.

Justice V. Chitambaresh said: “The practice of exhibiting a photograph of a person and shamming him in public for the sin of being in an impecunious condition cannot be encouraged in civilised societies like ours.”

The judge further observed that there was nothing immoral in their failure to repay the loans owing to a floundering business or other unavoidable reasons.

The court added that some of the borrowers might even be driven to commit suicide fearing ignominy on account of their photographs being published in newspapers. “It will remain a permanent taboo for their family,” the court observed.

The move was clearly an “affront to the right to live with dignity and honour as well as the right to privacy of the loanees”.

Such publication of photographs therefore, violates the rights guaranteed to the loanees under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the court held.

SBI’S STAND

However, the SBI justified its stand saying the terms and conditions of the loan agreements allowed them to publish defaulters’ photographs in newspapers.

But the court pointed out that the clause in the agreement at best empowered the bank to reveal only the names of borrowers in the print media or to disclose the information and details relating to the credit facility.

Even if there was such a permissive clause, the loanees would “not (be) stopped” from challenging the action of a bank “on the ground of violation of fundamental rights of loanees”, the court said.

The court also pointed out that there was no provision in the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules (SARFAESI) that enables banks to threaten to publish photograph of defaulters.

Article referred: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/banking/publishing-photographs-of-defaulters-in-newspapers-illegal-kerala-high-court/article5019565.ece

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more