It is an established fact that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) holds a pivotal role within our economic landscape, and it is incumbent upon the judiciary to exercise restraint in delving into matters concerning the monetary regulatory framework unless a compelling case necessitates an independent investigation. This viewpoint was unequivocally articulated by the Bombay High Court when it dismissed a petition that alleged wrongdoing by RBI officials in relation to the demonetization of 2016.
A bench comprising Justices Ajay Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh lent a patient ear to a petition brought forth by RTI activist Manoranjan Roy. Roy's plea entailed the demand for an autonomous inquiry into purportedly illicit actions undertaken by RBI officials during the demonetization process involving the discontinuation of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes.
Upon a thorough examination, the bench arrived at the firm conclusion that Roy's petition amounted to little more than an uninformed quest to uncover a fictitious transgression. The court underscored the incontestable fact that the issuance of legal tender falls squarely within the purview of the RBI and is executed under the imprimatur of expert committees. Consequently, any unfounded challenge to this process holds no merit.
Furthermore, the court categorically deemed the demonetization notification of 2016 to be a bona fide "policy decision," asserting that absent compelling evidence to the contrary, such decisions are to be presumed as being in the best interest of the public.
In its pronouncement, the bench underscored that the absence of any substantiated evidence of wrongdoing renders any proposed inquiry entirely bereft of a legitimate foundation. Additionally, the court took cognizance of the fact that since 2016, Roy had persistently pursued investigations into alleged malfeasance on the part of the RBI, yet had consistently failed to furnish any compelling evidence or enlist the services of independent experts to bolster his claims.
Roy's contentions revolved around the assertion that certain RBI officials had sidestepped due procedural norms and had facilitated the exchange of unaccounted old notes during the demonetization exercise. He cited the RBI's annual reports spanning the period from 2016 to 2018, citing a purported incongruity between the demonetized Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 notes in circulation and the figures reported subsequently.
With an intent to substantiate his claims, Roy sought an inquiry into a range of allegations, including criminal conspiracy, breach of trust, and cheating. However, the court, while acknowledging the considerable significance of the RBI, stressed that merely accessing the publicly available annual reports could not serve as grounds for branding them as irregular, particularly in the absence of evidence pointing to any criminal conduct.
Consequently, the court firmly articulated that the available information alone did not furnish any indication of potential offenses that would warrant a comprehensive inquiry or investigation.
