In Shobha v. Muthoot Finance, SLP(C) Nos. 2625-2627/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are not maintainable against Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs). The Court held that NBFCs, being private entities, do not perform public functions, and mere regulatory oversight under a statute does not subject them to writ jurisdiction. A writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against the State, statutory bodies, state-owned or state-funded entities, and private bodies performing public duties or statutory functions. However, NBFCs, despite being regulated, operate independently and are not considered instrumentalities of the State. The Court reiterated that mandamus is typically issued to public authorities to enforce statutory duties. In exceptional cases, it may apply to private entities, but only if a statute explicitly imposes a public duty on them. The judgment further emphasized that a public law remedy applies only if a private body performs a public function and denies rights related to its public duty. Merely being subject to regulatory guidelines does not make a private entity subject to writ jurisdiction. This ruling reaffirms the principle that judicial review under Article 226 is not automatically extendable to private entities unless they discharge functions of public importance.
