Comment on the Stance of RBI: Larger Public Interest of the Economy Takes Precedence Over the Individual Cases of Hardship

Must Read

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

Follow us

A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. It urged the Court to declare a part of the RBI circular issued on 27th March 2020, as unconstitutional. The circular stated that the interest on loans would continue to add on the outstanding part of the term loans during the moratorium period. The Petitioner argues that the circular has caused hardships to him as a borrower. Moreover, he said that it obstructs his ‘Right to Life’.

The Novel Coronavirus has brought our country to a halt. This transmittable disease has provided unprecedented challenges for national governance. To reduce the spread of the disease, the government declared a nationwide lockdown. It led to putting basic freedoms of movement, employment, and trade, among others on hold.

These restrictions are reasonable, especially in times when the entire nation is fighting this virus. However, it has affected those facing a cash crunch like people who have taken huge loans and are unable to pay interest on these loans. Reduced earnings during this period have added to the problems. As such, the Reserve Bank of India has a vital role in tackling the monetary issues of the people.

Against the backdrop of Coronavirus, the Central Bank had issued a circular in March 2020. This circular allowed banks to grant a moratorium to borrowers on loan repayments. This moratorium was for three months. The RBI further extended this period till 31st August 2020.

Despite this, it is essential to note that the interest rate will still accrue on the principal. The moratorium does not mean a waiver of repayments. Due to non- waiver of interest in such times, people have no way to continue their work and earn a livelihood. Hence, charging of interest defeats the purpose of the moratorium.

Arguments from both sides

Gajendra Sharma filed a plea in the SC challenging the Central Bank’s decision. The Supreme Court gave notice to the RBI on the same.

The Petitioner alleged that charging interest during the moratorium was wrong. He also claimed that it caused hindrance to his Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution [1]. Sharma argued that the aim of the circular would be pointless if there is no waiver on interest. It would lead to an increase in EMIs at a later stage. Thus, there should not be charging of interest during the moratorium period.

The RBI noted the consequences that would arise if the Petitioner’s argument was accepted. It said that the cost of the opportunity would shift from the borrower to the lenders and depositors. It would mean putting at risk the interest of all. The interest on loans is an essential source of income for the banks. Moreover, banks need to sustain reasonable interest margins for viable operations. The Supreme Court gave a week to the RBI to file a counter-affidavit. It posted the matter for hearing next week.

Current standing of the RBI on the issue

The Reserve Bank told the Supreme Court that if the interest on six-month moratorium period is waived off, the banks will incur a loss of around Rs 2,01,000 crore. It would also lead to a reduction of the national GDP by 1%. RBI states that the circular issued by it cannot be seen as a waiver of interest on loans. The aim and object of allowing a moratorium was only to defer the payment obligations. The objective of the circular is to ensure the viability of businesses.

In conclusion, the extension of the moratorium will indeed benefit those facing a short-term money crunch. They should make sure to repay the interest as soon as the moratorium period ends. Otherwise, the amount will accrue further interest. Opting for the moratorium could extend their loan tenure by tens of EMIs. It may add to their burden, especially if they have started repaying their loan recently. The people need to calculate the accumulated interest before they take the moratorium. This will enable them to see whether they can pay it back, along with their existing EMIs. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -