The Bombay High Court has directed the Union Home Secretary to appear before it, after expressing displeasure over the Ministry of Home Affairs' failure to respond to repeated communications concerning the RBI's alerts about campaigns by unscrupulous elements promising loan waivers. The Court observed that the Department's persistent failure to respond to communications from its law officers, despite repeated directions, reflected a sorry state of affairs.

A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish S. Chavan was hearing a writ petition filed by Bajaj Finance.

The Court noted that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), through a communication dated April 15, 2025, had alerted the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, about campaigns by unscrupulous elements relating to loan waivers and requested the Ministry to look into the issue.

By an order dated April 28, 2026, the Court had drawn the Ministry's attention to the malpractice and expected it to examine the issue and consider regulatory measures in coordination with the RBI. However, despite repeated directions, the issue remained unresolved.

“… we directed the learned counsel representing the Union of India to take appropriate instructions, as we expected some regulatory measures to be evolved by the Ministry of Home Affairs with the concerted efforts of the Reserve Bank of India. However, it appears that our directions have not at all been looked into,” the Court noted.

When the matter was taken up, the Union of India's counsel informed the Court that there was difficulty in identifying the appropriate officer in the Home Department to take cognizance of the RBI's communication.

The Court expressed displeasure at this response, observing that it was the Secretary's responsibility to identify the appropriate branch or desk and ensure that the communication reached the concerned officer. It observed:

“We find it really unfortunate that we have received such a response from the Union of India, and this despite the fact that it has its own paraphernalia, including various Nodal Officers, Law Officers, Advisors, etc.… the Secretary was under an obligation to ascertain as to which branch or which particular section/desk… should be entrusted with the communication.”

Rejecting the Union's request for another opportunity, the Court observed that the Secretary was expected to respond promptly to the communication from the Additional Solicitor General. It added that the Department's continued disregard of communications from its law officers had resulted in a failure to respond to the queries and notices issued by the Court.

The Court accordingly directed the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, to appear through video conferencing. It clarified that though there is no intention to waste the time of the Secretary, the information sought by the Court must be furnished.

“… we are clear in our indication that the information sought by us through our orders must be furnished, and the Union of India, through whosoever may be the officer, howsoever in high-ranking he may be, must respond to the orders passed by us,” the Court remarked.

The Union's counsel was directed to communicate the order to the Home Secretary.

Case Title: Bajaj Finance Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 5224 of 2022]