The Delhi High Court has stayed a direction issued by its single judge that required a second-level human review by trained legal professionals in cases where complaints are rejected by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Ombudsman. The division bench also stayed the requirement for the Deputy Governor of RBI to file an affidavit by January 15 on the implementation of these directions.
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia passed the interim stay order on Thursday while hearing an appeal filed by the RBI. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on March 17, 2026.
The single judge, in a detailed judgment dated November 27, 2025, had issued several directions to improve the RBI’s complaint redressal mechanism. One of the key directions was that all complaints rejected by the RBI Ombudsman must undergo a second-level human intervention by a panel of trained legal professionals — such as retired judicial officers or lawyers with a minimum of 10 years’ experience — to prevent dismissals on technical grounds.
The judgment noted that many public complaints were being rejected for procedural or technical errors, and emphasized that such rejections without giving an opportunity to rectify mistakes undermined the objective of a consumer-friendly grievance redressal mechanism.
The court had also observed:
“If the complaint redressal mechanism adopted by the Ombudsman is made more effective and efficient, litigation in courts and consumer forums can be reduced considerably.”
Appearing for the RBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the directions issued by the single judge were beyond the scope of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
He submitted that the Ombudsman Scheme was a statutory scheme framed under the Banking Regulation Act and the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, and any alterations to such a scheme could only be made by authorities empowered under these laws.
According to Mehta, requiring a rewrite of the scheme or mandating a second-level review infringed upon the RBI’s regulatory autonomy and legislative mandate.
Taking note of the submissions, the division bench stayed paragraphs 47(5) and 48 of the single judge’s judgment, which contained the directions for additional human supervision and the affidavit from the Deputy Governor.
The bench clarified:
“Accordingly, we provide that till the next date of hearing, the directions contained in paragraphs 47(5) and 48 of the impugned order shall remain stayed.”
The single-judge directions had come on a petition filed by a credit card holder who had become a victim of a fraudulent transaction. The petitioner’s complaint was rejected by the RBI Ombudsman without the opportunity to rectify procedural issues, prompting the legal challenge.
The single judge had stressed that a mechanised process should not lead to rejection of complaints and that complainants should be allowed to correct inadvertent errors in their applications.
