SC to examine disclosure of names in NPAs

Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the government, said that that it was for the banks to disclose the names

Tripods of television crew stand in front of the Supreme Court building in New Delhi
Tripods of television crew stand in front of the Supreme Court building in New Delhi
BS Reporter New Delhi
Last Updated : Oct 24 2016 | 11:27 PM IST
The central government on Monday told the Supreme Court that anexpert committee it had appointed on non-performing assets will submitits report this month end and the court must hold its hand till then for furtherexamination of the problem which plagues the banking sector.
 
The court, however, stated that it would take up the question of disclosure of the names of the defaulters on Friday. The Centre for Public Interest Litigation has moved the court for the disclosure. Its counsel Prashant Bhushan told the bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur that the expert committee report would not be reliable as its five members are thevery people involved in reckless lending.

The actual NPA is to the tune of Rs 3 lakh crore and those which were restructured and given more time to repay is not less than Rs 10 lakh crore, counsel said.  

The Chief Justice separated the consideration of the coming report on NPAs from the demand for disclosure. The report will be examined next month. But the court asked the RBI counsel what was the difficulty in disclosing the serious defaulters’ names. Its counsel replied that the principle of confidentiality and statutory limitations must be respected.    

Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the government, said that that it was for the banks to disclose the names and the government was not involved in that issue.    

Prashant Bhushan submitted that last year the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal of the RBI which claimed immunity from disclosing the names. In spite of that neither the government nor the RBI has obeyed the order of the court.  He said that the banks and the government could not raise arguments based on confidentiality and statutory limitations as the judgment had rejected each of the arguments.

The court and the general public have a right to know the names, not only under the Right to Information Act, but also when the authorities are colluding with the guilty parties to cover up the swindle of public money. 
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Oct 24 2016 | 11:20 PM IST

Next Story