|
|
|
Rights, freedoms shouldn't be used by private biz to avoid regulation: SC
|
|
|
|
Top Stories |
|
|
|
|
SME Times News Bureau | 06 Dec, 2021
The Supreme Court on Monday observed that the court must be circumspect
that rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution do not become
a weapon in the arsenal of private businesses to disable regulations
enacted in the public interest.
A bench of Justices D.Y.
Chandrachud, Vikram Nath, and B.V. Nagarathna said: "The right to
equality and the freedom to carry on one's trade cannot inhere a right
to evade or avoid regulation."
The bench further added that in
liberalised economies, regulatory mechanisms represent democratic
interests of setting the terms of operation for private economic actors.
"This court does not espouse shunning of judicial review when actions
of regulatory bodies are questioned," it noted in the 55-page judgment.
Justice
Chandrachud, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said: "A
regulated economy is a critical facet of ensuring a balance between
private business interests and the State's role in ensuring a just
polity for its citizens."
He added that a casual invalidation of
regulatory action in the garb of upholding fundamental rights and
freedoms, without a careful evaluation of its objective of social and
economic control, would harm the general interests of the public.
The bench noted scholars across the world have warned against the judiciary constitutionalising an unregulated marketplace.
The
bench said: "This court must be circumspect that the rights and
freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution do not become a weapon in the
arsenal of private businesses to disable regulation enacted in the
public interest."
The top court dismissed an appeal by Akshay N.
Patel against the Madhya Pradesh High Court order, which upheld Clause 2
(iii) of the Revised Guidelines on Merchanting Trade Transactions (MTT)
dated January 23, 2020 issued by the first respondent, Reserve Bank of
India, in the exercise of its power under Section 10(4) and 11(1) of the
Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999.
The appellant obtained an
international MTT contract to serve as an intermediary between the sale
of PPE products by a supplier in China to a buyer in the US. In May
2020, the bank informed the appellant that the RBI had denied his MTT
contract on the basis of Clause 2(iii) of the 2020 MTT Guidelines. The
government had then banned the export of PPE products against the
backdrop of the Covid pandemic.
The appellant contended that a
prohibition of exports in PPE products was sufficient to achieve the
objective of ensuring adequate supplies, and it was not necessary to
also prohibit MTTs. His counsel further argued facilitating an MTT of
PPE products between two countries does not impact their stock in India.
The
bench said while MTTs in PPE products may not directly reduce the stock
of these products in India, it still does contribute to their trade
between two foreign nations. "In doing so, it directly reduces the
available quantity of PPE products in the international market, which
may have been bought by India, if so required. As such, MTTs contribute
to reducing the available stock of PPE products in the international
market that India could have acquired," it noted.
It further
added that the Centre's policy to ban the export of PPE products
reflects their stance on the product's non-tradability during the Covid
pandemic. "It highlights a clear policy choice under which Indian
entities shall not be allowed to export these products outside of India,
in all probability to the highest buyers across the globe who may end
up hoarding the global supply. Hence, banning MTTs in PPE products was
critical in ensuring that Indian foreign exchange reserves are not
utilised to facilitate the hoarding of PPE products with wealthier
nations," said the bench.
Upholding the high court verdict
delivered on October 8 last year, the bench said: "The measure was
validly enacted, in pursuance of legitimate state interest and did not
disproportionately impact the fundamental rights of the appellant.
Hence, Clause 2(iii) passes muster under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21.
For the reasons noted in this judgment, we see no need to interfere."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customs Exchange Rates |
Currency |
Import |
Export |
US Dollar
|
66.20
|
64.50 |
UK Pound
|
87.50
|
84.65 |
Euro
|
78.25
|
75.65 |
Japanese
Yen |
58.85 |
56.85 |
As on 13 Aug, 2022 |
|
|
Daily Poll |
|
|
PM Modi's recent US visit to redefine India-US bilateral relations |
|
|
|
|
|
Commented Stories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|