Court Directs Home Secretary to Appear via Video Conferencing to Identify Responsible Officer and Ensure Compliance with Court Orders
In a significant judgment dated October 21, 2026, the Bombay High Court, in a Division Bench presided by Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashish S. Chavan, expressed serious displeasure over the non-responsiveness of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) concerning fraudulent loan waiver campaigns targeting financial institutions. The writ petition was filed by Bajaj Finance Ltd. against the Union of India and others, highlighting malpractice by unscrupulous elements involved in loan waiver schemes.
The Court noted that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had, as early as April 15, 2025, communicated to the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, drawing attention to these fraudulent campaigns and requesting regulatory intervention. Despite the RBI's communication and the Court's repeated directions to the Union of India to take necessary actions, the Ministry of Home Affairs had failed to respond or take any visible steps.
The Court recounted its exhaustive order passed on April 28, 2026, which emphasized the urgency of the matter and directed the Union of India to evolve regulatory measures in collaboration with the RBI. Subsequent hearings on June 25, 2026, and July 28, 2026, reiterated the importance of the Ministry's involvement and clarified the proper party nomenclature as the Department of Home Affairs.
However, during the hearing on October 21, 2026, the Court was informed by Mr. Rui Rodrigues, representing the Union of India, about the difficulty in identifying the appropriate officer within the Home Ministry to address the RBI's communication. This admission was met with stern criticism by the Bench, which underscored that the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, is duty-bound to ascertain the responsible branch or officer and ensure a proper response is placed before the Court.
The Court lamented the persistent disregard shown by the Ministry towards court orders and communications by law officers, including repeated emails and letters from the Additional Solicitor General. It described the Ministry's conduct as a "sorry state of affairs" and emphasized that such an attitude cannot be tolerated.
Rejecting further requests for adjournment, the Court directed the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, to personally appear before the Court via video conferencing on October 27, 2026. The purpose is to identify the concerned officer responsible for handling the matter and to ensure compliance with the Court's directions. The Court clarified that it respects the Secretary's busy schedule but insists on timely and effective responses to judicial and legal communications.
This judgment highlights the judiciary's firm stance on ensuring governmental accountability and responsiveness, especially in matters impacting financial institutions and public trust. It also reinforces the critical role of inter-departmental coordination in tackling fraudulent financial practices.
Bottom Line:
Writ petition concerning fraudulent loan waiver campaigns targeting financial institutions - Court expressed serious displeasure at non-responsiveness of Ministry of Home Affairs despite RBI communication and repeated court directions - Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs directed to remain present through video conferencing to identify concerned officer and ensure response to court orders.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India Article 226
Bajaj Finance Ltd. v. Union of India, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3011061
