The Supreme Court on Friday sought the assistance of top law officers in hearing a plea against opening of FDI in multi brand retail sector saying there was a need for clarification since some link is missing pertaining to the RBI regulation on the issue.
The court, which was initially reluctant to entertain the PIL on the issue by terming it as a policy matter, decided to take the aid of Attorney General G E Vahanvati or Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman after the petitioner submitted that RBI nod was missing in allowing the FDI in retail sector.
A Bench comprising Justice R M Lodha and Justice Anil R Dave was hearing the submissions of M L Sharma, an advocate of the apex court who himself filed a Public Interest Litigation petition opposing the opening of the multi-brand retail sector to FDI.
The Bench wanted to satisfy itself with the argument of the counsel, who appeared as party-in-person and argued that the Reserve Bank had brought out a regulation in 2008 and that the government cannot issue an executive order without amending the regulation.
Sharma contended that for amending the regulation, Parliament approval is required.
Sharma averred that retail trading is strictly prohibited under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) under which the power to come out with the circular is vested with the RBI and the RBI has not issued any amended regulation after 2008. Therefore, the circular issued by the government on FDI in retail trade was without authority, he argued.
At this, the Bench asked the petitioner to serve a copy of the writ petition to the Attorney General and posted the matter to October 12 for further hearing.
The bench at one stage accused the advocate of “misleading” the court, saying allowing FDI in retail sector was a policy matter which is exclusively in the domain of the government of the day. “Some may say it is good and some may say it is bad, but nothing is ultra vires,” it said.
