The Supreme Court today dismissed the petition filed by Advocate M.L. Sharma challenging the FDI policy in multi brand retail..A three judge Bench comprising of Justices R.M. Lodha, Kurian Joseph and Madan B. Lokur while dismissing the petition observed that the Court won’t interfere with policy matters unless it was unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions, arbitrary or in abuse of power..Sharma had challenged the FDI policy allowing multi brand retail on the ground that it was without the authority of law. Sharma, appearing in person, contended that the Central Government had no authority to frame policy regarding FDI which he claimed rested with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as per Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA)..When the Court pointed out that one of the objects of the policy was to eliminate middlemen who were ‘sucking’ the life out of the economy of the country, Sharma said that FDI in multi brand retail would eliminate small hawkers who cannot be classified as middlemen..Attorney General (AG) Goolam E. Vahanvati, appearing for the Union government, submitted that the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2012 (Third Amendment Regulations) was published in the Gazette of India – Extraordinary on October 30, 2012. By the Third Amendment Regulations, RBI had made amendments to the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000 (2000 Regulations)..The Third Amendment Regulations had been submitted in the Court on November 5, 2012 but the petitioner had raised the apprehension that the same would not be laid before both the houses of the parliament within the prescribed time period. The court had then adjourned the matter for a subsequent date..Since Sharma had not challenged the Third Amendment Regulations, the Court held that his challenge to the policy was without merits and dismissed the petition..The Court ruled that Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) is empowered to make policy relating to FDI and there is no merit in the submission that the Union government has no authority to formulate FDI policy. While elaborating upon the benefits of the policy as enumerated in the counter affidavit filed by the Union government, the Court also ruled that the policy is only an enabling policy and State governments and Union Territories are free to take their own decisions depending on the local needs and conditions..Subsequently, the Court also observed that in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner “certain allegations have been made which should not have been made” and sought to impose costs on the petitioner unless he withdrew the rejoinder in entirety. Sharma thereupon agreed to withdraw the rejoinder in entirety and the Court allowed him to do so while ruling that no part of the rejoinder shall remain on record.
The Supreme Court today dismissed the petition filed by Advocate M.L. Sharma challenging the FDI policy in multi brand retail..A three judge Bench comprising of Justices R.M. Lodha, Kurian Joseph and Madan B. Lokur while dismissing the petition observed that the Court won’t interfere with policy matters unless it was unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions, arbitrary or in abuse of power..Sharma had challenged the FDI policy allowing multi brand retail on the ground that it was without the authority of law. Sharma, appearing in person, contended that the Central Government had no authority to frame policy regarding FDI which he claimed rested with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as per Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA)..When the Court pointed out that one of the objects of the policy was to eliminate middlemen who were ‘sucking’ the life out of the economy of the country, Sharma said that FDI in multi brand retail would eliminate small hawkers who cannot be classified as middlemen..Attorney General (AG) Goolam E. Vahanvati, appearing for the Union government, submitted that the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2012 (Third Amendment Regulations) was published in the Gazette of India – Extraordinary on October 30, 2012. By the Third Amendment Regulations, RBI had made amendments to the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000 (2000 Regulations)..The Third Amendment Regulations had been submitted in the Court on November 5, 2012 but the petitioner had raised the apprehension that the same would not be laid before both the houses of the parliament within the prescribed time period. The court had then adjourned the matter for a subsequent date..Since Sharma had not challenged the Third Amendment Regulations, the Court held that his challenge to the policy was without merits and dismissed the petition..The Court ruled that Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) is empowered to make policy relating to FDI and there is no merit in the submission that the Union government has no authority to formulate FDI policy. While elaborating upon the benefits of the policy as enumerated in the counter affidavit filed by the Union government, the Court also ruled that the policy is only an enabling policy and State governments and Union Territories are free to take their own decisions depending on the local needs and conditions..Subsequently, the Court also observed that in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner “certain allegations have been made which should not have been made” and sought to impose costs on the petitioner unless he withdrew the rejoinder in entirety. Sharma thereupon agreed to withdraw the rejoinder in entirety and the Court allowed him to do so while ruling that no part of the rejoinder shall remain on record.
