News » National

Updated: November 6, 2012 00:46 IST

Supreme Court refuses to interfere with FDI

J. Venkatesan
Comment (2)   ·   print   ·   T  T  
Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the policy on FDI in retail saying that if it does not stand in Parliament then it would be at government’s peril. File photo
The Hindu
Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the policy on FDI in retail saying that if it does not stand in Parliament then it would be at government’s peril. File photo

Policy decisions are government’s sole prerogative, and judicial review must be within four corners of law: Bench

The Supreme Court said on Monday that it would not interfere in policy decisions, even as the Centre informed it that the Reserve Bank of India had notified the amendments to the regulations permitting foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail.

Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati produced before a Bench of Justices R.M. Lodha and Anil R. Dave the Gazette notification amending the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person, Resident outside India) Regulations, 2000, permitting foreign direct investment in the sector. The notification permits 100 per cent FDI in single-brand product retail and 51 per cent in multi-brand retail.

“The amended rules have been published in the Gazette of India on October 30, and everything has been done. The rules have been changed, and the new rules lay down sector-specific policies for FDI,” Mr. Vahanvati said.

Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, who had challenged the notification, said the amendments would have to be placed before Parliament for its approval as per Sections 47 and 48 of the FEMA. He apprehended that the Centre might not do so.

Mr. Sharma pointed to Section 48, which says: “…any modification or annulment [of the regulations] shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything done under that rule or regulation.” The Centre had already issued about 50 FDI licences, and before getting parliamentary approval, it might issue more , and they could not be undone even if Parliament rejected the amendments.

Justice Lodha told counsel: “Why do you presume that the government will not place the amendments before Parliament. If the provisions require them to do so, they will have to do it. Your apprehensions are premature and unfounded. If Parliament does not approve the amendments, …it will be at their [the Centre’s] own risk and peril.”

Mr. Sharma said that through an additional affidavit, he sought a declaration that Section 48 insofar as it validated all acts done prior to Parliament’s approval was unconstitutional. Justice Lodha told him: “We would know about it only after the winter session of Parliament. Let us see whether it is placed before Parliament or not, and then we will decide. We are not passing any order now. They can take risk. If their action does not stand in Parliament, they have made the policy at their own peril.”

Counsel for Swadeshi Jagran Manch and the Federation of Delhi Traders Association wanted that they be impleaded in Mr. Sharma’s petition, saying a parliamentary committee had opposed FDI in multi-brand retail.

Justice Lodha told counsel that policy decisions were the government’s sole prerogative, and the court could not interfere in them. Judicial review, he said, had to be within the four corners of law. The Bench did not pass any order on the applications.

The notification has laid down the following conditions: fresh agricultural produce, including fruits, vegetables, flowers, grains, pulses, fresh poultry, fishery and meat products may be unbranded; the minimum amount to be brought in as FDI by the foreign investor would be $100 million; at least 50 per cent of the total FDI shall be invested in ‘back-end infrastructure’ within three years of the first tranche; and at least 30 per cent of the value of procurement of manufactured/processed products purchased shall be sourced from Indian ‘small farmers.’

It further stipulates that retail sales outlets be set up only in cities with a population of more than 10 lakh. In the States/Union Territories not having cities with a population of more than 10 lakh, these outlets may be set up in the cities of their choice, preferably in the largest, and the government will have the first right to procurement of agricultural products.

The Bench adjourned the matter to January 22, 2013, so as to enable the Centre to place the amendments before both Houses of Parliament in the winter session.

More In: National | News

If your newsitem that an amendment to the FEMA is required to passed by
parliament, as enunciated ny the apex court, is correct,it is a clear
case of usurption of executive powers by the judiciary. Judiciary can
not be allowed to dictate terms to the executives.The role of courts
begin and end with the intrepreation of laws as passed by the

from:  manoharan
Posted on: Dec 2, 2012 at 19:42 IST

This is so wrong! This could potentially cause loss of employment and
closure of small business and manufacturers.

from:  Rajesh
Posted on: Nov 6, 2012 at 03:14 IST
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Tamil Nadu

Andhra Pradesh

Other States






Recent Article in National

Union Minister Jitendra Singh. Photo: Sandeep Saxena.

J&K govt capable of dealing with any situation: Jitendra

He urged people not to panic over the issue of separatists. »