Read Time: 12 minutes

A Supreme Court bench today disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by BJP MP Subramanyam Swamy seeking the court to constitute a committee to frame guidelines for dealing with huge Non-Performing Assets stating that it is a matter of policy and is to be decided by the legislature.

The bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Nagarathna informed Dr.Swamy that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and Finance Ministry (FM) have been framing policies in this respect from time to time and that granting loans against share certificates and other such documents is a matter of policy .

Justice Chandrachud noted that constituting a committee and monitoring their functioning is a cumbersome process and will take up a lot of the court’s time.
Swamy replied to this stating that the RBI is not transparent about NPAs and the public are constantly kept in the dark about it. He further stated that the general public come to know of these NPAs only when the banks close down.

The bench however noted that since the core issue involved in the reliefs sought are a matter of policy and pertain to the domain of the experts, the matter may not be amenable with judicial standards. The bench also held that the courts cannot tread into the policy domain. The bench therefore granted liberty to Dr.Swamy to make a representation of this nature to the RBI or submit the petition itself as a representation. Stating these reasons the bench said that the court would not be inclined to interfere in the issue.

Background

The PIL was filed before the Apex Court seeking directions for conduct of an investigation by CBI or any other competent authority, to investigate into the alleged irregularities committed by the RBI officials in discharge of their duties. The petition essentially raises questions upon the functions of RBI, highlighting the biggest financial scams and the alleged connivance of the officials therein [Dr. Subramanium Swamy & Anr. Vs. CBI & Anr.].

The petitioner(s) in person, Dr. Subramanium Swamy and Advocate Satya Sabharwal, on the outset, enumerates the various enactments empowering the Reserve Bank of India, namely;

1. Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
2. Banking Regulation Act, 1949
3. State Bank of India Act, 1955
4. Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970
5. Nationalised Bank (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980

It summarises the key functions of the RBI as follows;

• To Formulate, implement and monitor the monetary policy.
• To maintain price stability while keeping in mind the objective of growth.
• To prescribe broad parameters of banking operations within which the country’s banking and financial system function.
• To maintain public confidence in the system, protect depositors' interest and provide cost-effective banking services to the public.
• To manage the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.
• To facilitate external trade and payment and promote orderly development and maintenance of foreign exchange market in India.
• To issue and exchange or destroy currency and coins not fit for circulation.
• To give the public adequate quantity of supplies of currency notes and coins and in good quality.
• To perform a wide range of promotional functions to support national objective.
• To introduce and upgrade safe and efficient modes of payment systems in the country to meet the requirements of the public at large.
• To maintain public confidence in payment and settlement system.
• To perform merchant banking function for the central and the state governments; also acts as their banker.
• To maintain banking accounts of all scheduled banks.

It further says that on the basis of information sought through several RTIs, it is evident that no officer of Reserve Bank of India has ever been held accountable for any dereliction of duty in case of any fraud reported by any bank. "This is in sharp contrast to the number of frauds exploding in the banking sector in India aggregating to in excess of over Rupees 3 lakh crores," plea states.

Petition brings on record that, in the last few years various banks have reported scams after scams wherein the role of bank officials were apparent but surprisingly no RBI official was brought to justice. In none of the high-profile banking scams the Central Bureau of Investigation has even sought to examine the role of RBI officials, it is averred.   

It also questions the role of Chief Risk Officers, who have failed to perform their duties due to demonstrable connivance. A list of scams have been put forth, alleging that, they were caused due to active participation of the RBI officials;

1. Kingfisher Scam (FIR No RCBSM 2015E 0006) 
2. Bank of Maharashtra Scam (FIR not available in public domain)
3. Uttar Pradesh-based Private sugar organization Scam (FIR No RCBD1/2018/E/0002)
4. Nirav Modi/Punjab National Bank Scam (FIR No.RC0772018E0001)
5. Rotomac Global Private Limited Scam (FIR No RC0062020A0004) 
6. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Scam (FIR No.189/19) 
7. IL&FS, Scam (Criminal complaint bearing no 20 of 2019 before Special Judge, Greater Mumbai) 
8. PMC Bank scam (Mumbai Police’s Economic Offences Wing) 
9. Yes Bank Limited Scam (FIR No RC2192020E0004)
10. First Leasing Company of India Limited Scam (FIR No RCMA1 2017 A 0017)

Elaborating on the information sought through RTIs, petition enlists the following queries raised;

1. The list of cases and banks involved in frauds aggregating to Rs 100 Crores or more and entered in the RBI Central Fraud Registry from 01.012015 till date. 
2. The list of cases referred to CBI for frauds amount of Rs. 100 Crores or more by the respective banks from 01.01.2015 till date.
3. The provisions or mechanism to hold any officer or staff member of RBI accountable for any dereliction of duty in case of any fraud reported by any bank.
4. The details of the persons against whom such action has been initiated by the RBI in respect of frauds aggregating to Rs. 100 crore or more in each case from 01.01.2015 till date.

It is said that RBI responded to the aforementioned RTIs vide its reply dated 27.12.2020, however, no convincing reason was provided.