Litigant Cannot Claim Right To Privacy To Override Court Orders On Disclosure: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on 25 March held that a bank must comply with court directions and cannot refuse disclosure of account details on privacy grounds, even if a litigant alleges violation of his right to privacy.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S dismissed an appeal against the Single Judge's order declining to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court observed:

“In the absence of proper parties in the party array, the appellant-petitioner is not legally entitled for consideration of the first relief sought for in W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

The appellant, Herrose K.M., is the respondent in matrimonial proceedings pending before the Family Court, Aluva. The Court issued a summons to South Indian Bank to produce his account details.

Pursuant to the summons, the bank furnished the account statements. Herrose claimed that while details for three years were sought, statements for eleven years were produced, allegedly violating his right to privacy.

He filed a writ petition before the Single Judge seeking directions on how banks should handle litigants' financial data, compliance by court registry staff, and compensation for the alleged privacy breach.

The bank argued that it had acted in compliance with the court summons and that any challenge should have been raised before the Family Court. It also noted that Herrose had approached the Consumer Commission seeking compensation.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that banks must comply with court summons and cannot refuse disclosure on privacy grounds. Aggrieved, Herrose filed the writ appeal.

On the issue of seeking directions to all banks, the Bench noted that the sole respondent in the writ petition was only the Manager of South Indian Bank, Aluva Branch. The Court observed that the necessary parties were not before it.

On the question of compensation, the Court referred to the Single Judge's finding:

“When the court summons account details, the Bank is bound to provide the same. The Bank cannot refuse to provide the account details on the ground that it would violate the right to privacy of the petitioner.”

The Court further noted that Herrose had already approached the Consumer Commission for compensation and had suppressed material facts, including prior proceedings challenging the Family Court orders. By approaching the Court with “soiled hands,” he disentitled himself from relief under Article 226.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it amounted to an abuse of process.

For Appellant: Party-in-Person

For Respondent: Advocate Sunil Shanker, SC