LexMANOHAR LAL SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 1161
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (C) No. 417 of 2012)
MAY 1, 2013
[R.M. LODHA, MADAN B. LOKUR AND
KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:
A
B
c
Policy of Foreign Direct Investment in Multi-Brand Retail
Trading - Held: Under the Constitution, executive has been
accorded primary responsibility for
formulation of
governmental policy - The executive function comprises both
detennination of policy as well as carrying it into execution -
0
If Government after due reflection, consideration and
deliberation feels that by allowing FD/ up to 51% in Multi-
Brand Retail Trading, country's economy will grow and it will
facilitate better access to market for producer of goods and
will enhance employment potential, then, it is not open for E
Court to go into merits and demerits of such policy - On
matters of policy, Court does not interfere unless the policy
is unconstitutional or contrary to statutory provisions or
arbitrary or irrational or in abuse of power - Impugned policy
that allows FD/ up to 51% in Multi-Brand Retail Trading does
F
not appear to suffer from any of these vices.
Policy of FD/ - Competence of Central Government -
Held: Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP)
as per Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 is allocated the
subject of 'Direct foreign and non-resident investment in G
industrial and seNice projects, excluding functions entrusted
to the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs' - Thus, DIPP is
empowered to make policy pronouncements on FD/ -
Competence of Central Government to fonnulate a policy
1161
H
1162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 2 S.C.R.
A relating to investment by a non-resident entity/person resident
outside India, in the capital of an Indian company is beyond
doubt - Reserve Bank of India is empowered to prohibit,
restrict or regulate various types of foreign exchange
transactions, including FD/, in India by means of necessary
e regulations - RBI Regulates foreign investment in India inl
accordance with Government of India's policy - A/location of
Business Rules, 1961 - Foreign Exchange Management
(Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside!
1
India) Regulations, 2000 - Foreign Exchange Management
c (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside.
India) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2012 - Foreign
Exchange Management Act, 1999 - ss. 6(3) and 47.
Policy of FD/ in Multi-Brand Retail Trading - Held:
Impugned policy is only an enabling policy and State
D Governments/Union Territories are free to take their own
decisions in regard to implementation of policy in keeping
with local conditions - It is, thus, left to choice of State
Governments/Union Territories whether or not to implement
E
F
the policy to allow FD/ up to 51% in Multi-Brand Retail Trading.
Policy of FD/ in Multi-Brand Retail Trading - Objectives
of - Discussed.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
417 of 2012.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
G.E. Vahanvati, AG, Siddharth Luthra, ASG, Anoopam
Prasad, Supriya Juneja, Nitam Pasha, J. Narula {for B. Krishna ·
Prasad}, Vikramjeet Banerjee, P.S. Sudheer, S.S. Shamshery,
G R.C. Kohli, for the appearing parties and Manohar Lal Sharma
Petitioner-in-person.
The following order of the Court was delivered by
ORDER
H
1. We have heard Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma - petitioner in
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA
1163
person and Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General.
A
We have also heard Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned counsel
for the intervenor - Swadeshi Jagaran Foundation in I.A. No. 2
of 2012.
2. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma - petitioner in person prays for
B
withdrawal of the rejoinder-affidavit in its entirety in view of the
objectionable statements contained therein. We allow him to
do so. It is directed that no part of the rejoinder-affidavit shall
be treated as part of the record.
3. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for C
quashing Press Note Nos. 4,5,6,7 and 8 of (2012 Series) dated
20th September, 2012 being unconstitutional and without any
authority of law.
4. By these Press Notes, the policy of Foreign Direct
D
Investment (FOi) in Single-Brand Product Retail Trading, Multi-
Brand Retail Trading, Air Transport Services, Broadcasting
Carriage Services and Power Exchanges has been reviewed.
In the forwarding circular, it is mentioned in para 5 that
necessaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.