New Delhi, Jan 8 The Delhi High Court on Thursday stayed its own direction requiring a second level human intervention by trained legal personnel in case any complaint is rejected by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) ombudsman.
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, which was hearing an appeal by the RBI, stayed the November 27, 2025 direction issued by a single judge.
“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 division bench said and listed the matter for further hearing on March 17.
It also stayed the direction that the deputy governor of RBI should file an affidavit by January 15 stating the measures taken to implement the single judge’s directions.
The single judge, in its November 27, 2025 judgement, had passed several directions to strengthen the system to deal with customer complaints by the RBI Ombudsman.
One of such directions was that “whenever the complaints filed before the RBI Ombudsman are finally rejected, the same shall undergo a second level human supervision process by trained legal personnel e.g. retired judicial officers, lawyers, etc., who are legally trained for at least 10 years, so that complaints are not rejected due to small errors”.
The November order had further said 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.
During the hearing before the division bench, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the RBI, contended that while issuing the direction concerned, the single judge has travelled beyond the scope of the power which can be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution.
He said the scheme which is directed to be rewritten is a statutory scheme framed under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and Payment of Settlement Systems Act.
The law officer said the scheme framed in terms of these enactments can be altered or modified or changed only by the authorities empowered under the said laws.
The single-judge bench had noted that the rejection of public complaints due to technical reasons shows that the functioning of the RBI ombudsman is not more consumer friendly.
It had directed the RBI to take steps to ensure that all complaints filed by the customers are not rejected by the ombudsman simply by a mechanised process.
It had also said that if there are any mistakes made by complainants, an opportunity ought to be given to them to correct any errors or mistakes.
The single judge had passed the order on a petition by a credit card holder who became a victim of a fraudulent transaction.
