By IANS,
New Delhi : The Supreme Court Friday sought the view of the top government law official — either the attorney general or the solicitor general — on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the government’s decision to permit FDI in multi-brand retail.
The apex court sought clarification from the attorney general or solicitor general while hearing a PIL filed by lawyer M.L. Sharma, challenging the government notification on procedural grounds.
Sharma contended that the notification was in violation of existing Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines which do not permit foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail and that the government could not overrule RBI regulations by a notification.
Justice R.M. Lodha and Justice Anil R. Dave held that policymaking was the prerogative of the government, but sought the assistance of top government law officials to understand the issues raised in the petition against the opening of retail sector for foreign investment.
The court said the government of India had the prerogative to make the policy.
However, the court said that there was some link missing in the arguments made by the petitioner advocate.
So let the attorney general or solicitor general clarify the position, it said.
“It is within the domain of the government to make policies. We don’t want to interfere in the executive’s domain. The petitioner may feel that FDI was bad for the people but government thinks otherwise,” the court said.
While seeking clarification from the attorney general or the solicitor general, the court asked Sharma to delete the name of the prime minister from the list of respondents.
The petitioner contended that the entry of the multi-national companies would hurt the livelihood of 35 crore Indians and they must be protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution.
He pleaded that the notification be declared void and unconstitutional, since this notification had no legal power to be applied as a law effecting FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act) and IRDA (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority).
As Sharma pressed this point, the court asked him not to make such submission as the government’s thinking was different from his as it thought that such a move would generate more employment.
The bench told Sharma that it was on the legality of the issue raised by him.
Sharma, while quoting figures, said at present, the “retail sector in India (excluding villages and towns) is about $500 billion per annum which is expected to be $900 billion in 2014. About 35 million Indians are self-employed in the retail sectors for ‘kirana’, food, vegetable and others.”
Besides this, he said another 20 crore people were engaged in small trading in the cities without fixed retail outlets. They sell all kinds of milk products and vegetables and fruits. He said they sell all these on hand-driven cycle carts in the cities.