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

Must Read

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...

“Pro-Enforcement Bias” Towards Foreign Arbitral Awards Domestically, in light of Vijay Karia and Ors. V. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L and Ors.

International Arbitration faces challenges domestically due to unharmonized local laws for enforcement. Often it may occur that an award...

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

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Bombay HC: It Will Be Difficult if Civic Bodies Don’t Take Action on Illegal Constructions

The Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that if the Municipal Corporations do not take action on the illegal constructions, things will become very difficult. This observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing a PIL after the Bhiwandi building collapse on September 21st, 2020 which led to the death of 39 lives. Mumbai Thane, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Navi Mumbai, and Bhiwandi-Nizampur corporations were filed as respondents.

Uttarakhand High Court Directed State Authorities To Frame SOP Regarding Kumbh Mela 2021

Noticing the commencement date of Kumbh Mela 2021 amid pandemic from 27 February 2021, the Uttarakhand High Court on Monday expressed concern with regard to organizing and conducting of the Mela and directed State Authorities to discuss and resolve the logistical problems which can come in organizing the Mela during the pandemic time.

Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Mahindra Finance, Being a Purely Private Body: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court reiterated that Writ Petition against the purely private body is not maintainable and dismissed the petition which was filed against Mahindra Finance Bank as Arif Khan v. Branch Manager Mahindra Finance Sultanpur & Another.

Publication of Notices for Inter-Faith Marriages No Longer Mandatory: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has passed a landmark judgment that likely brings relief to inter-faith marriage. The Court on Wednesday said that the mandatory publication of Notices of Inter-Faith marriages will now be optional to protect the Privacy and Liberty of the Couple. The Court observed that the publication of the notice would “invade the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy”. Therefore, it has made it optional for the couple, they can now request in form of writing to a marriage officer to publish or not to publish a notice regarding the marriage.

Bombay High Court to NIA: Consider Health and Age of Varavara Rao Before Opposing His Bail Plea

The Bombay HC on Wednesday observed that ‘we are all humans’ and asked the National Investigation Agency and the Maharashtra Government to consider the health and age of the Telugu poet-activist Varavara Rao before making submissions in response to his bail plea application on medical grounds.

Supreme Court Agrees To Examine Centre’s Plea To Keep Adultery a Crime in Armed Forces

The Centre appealed to the Supreme court on Wednesday, pleading that the 2018 judgment of decriminalizing adultery under IPC must not apply to the armed forces. The Supreme Court in a path-breaking verdict in 2018 decriminalized adultery and declared all its provisions unconstitutional as it diminishes the value of women, but maintained that it continues to be a ground for divorce.

Supreme Court Examines the Pollution in Yamuna River for the Second Time

The Supreme Court on Wednesday made a second attempt to clean the Yamuna river by taking a Suo Moto Cognizance of significantly high levels of ammonia water discharged from neighbouring states like Haryana into Delhi.

Fetus Suffering From Anencephaly, Woman’s Plea To Terminate 28-Weeks Pregnancy Allowed by Delhi HC

Based on the report of the medical board constituted by AIIMS, the Delhi High Court on Monday allowed a petition filed by a woman seeking the termination of her 28-weeks pregnancy. They said in its report that the fetus suffered from anencephaly, a disorder where the skull bone is not developed and was thus incompatible with life, therefore her fetus can be aborted.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -