Listen to this articleGajendra Sharma v. Union of India and Anr.
Writ
Petition (Civil) No.825 of 2020 decided on 27th November,2020
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/11127/11127_2020_34_1_24859_Judgement_27-Nov-2020.pdf
Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBASH REDDY, M.R. SHAH
JJ.
Facts:
The
present writ petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 32 of the
Constitution. The petitioner availed a home loan of Rs.37,48,000/- from ICICI
Bank. However, after the outbreak of COVID-19, The Government of India
announced a nationwide lockdown. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on 27 March,
2020 vide its notification issued certain measured to mitigate the burden of
debt servicing brought about by disruptions on account of COVID-19. The petitioner,
however, claimed that due to lockdown, all means of livelihood have been
curtailed by the Government. Furthermore, the petitioner asserted that RBI’s
notification mandated that interest must be charged even during the moratorium
period. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner contended that imposition of such
interest is ultra vires and hence filed the present writ in the Supreme Court.
Issue:
The
Supreme Court considered the following issue:
1.
Whether the notification issued by the RBI is ultra
vires and violate “Right to Life” of the petitioner as guaranteed by Article 21
of the Constitution?
Arguments:
|
Petitioner |
Respondent |
|
Shri Rajiv Dutta,
learned senior counsel submitted that: 1. Reserve Bank of
India has by the notification made it clear that interest shall continue to
accrue on the outstanding portion of the term loans during the moratorium
period. Furthermore, the above action of imposition of interest during the
moratorium period is completely devastating and causes hindrance and obstruction
in right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. 2. The
additional interest burden for three months’ moratorium period is also
equally divided in all future EMIs, which is to increase the monthly bill of
the customer. The notification qua payment of interest violates the principle
of natural justice as the Government on one hand ceased the working of the
individuals and on other hand asking to pay the loan interest during
moratorium. |
Shri Tushar
Mehta, learned Solicitor General submitted that: 1. the Central Government
is fully conscious of the difficulties faced by the various sectors and the
stakeholders of various sectors and the Finance Ministry, after the outbreak
of COVID-19, has taken several measures of reliefs dealing with the potential
problems faced by several sectors and in several spheres of all financial
worlds. 2. In pursuance of
circular dated 23.10.2020, as a follow-up towards the implementation of the
aforesaid decision, the State Bank of India has informed that as on
13.11.2020, as per provisional, unaudited information received so far from
various lending institutions, such lending institutions have released
ex-gratia amount of an aggregate exceeding Rs. 4,300 Crores in over 13.12 Crore
accounts of borrowers covered under the Scheme. |
Held:
The Supreme
Court after analysing the arguments submitted by both the parties and taking in
considerations the affidavits filed, observed that the pandemic has not only
caused a serious threat to the health of the people but has also cast its shadow on the economic
growth of the country as well as other countries in the entire world. The
Supreme Court observed that the Central Government was fully conscious of
the difficulties faced by the various sectors and the stakeholders of various
sectors. The counsel for petitioner expressed its satisfaction with the
measures taken by the Government of India redressing grievances of the
petitioner. The 3 judge bench issued directions to the respondents to ensure
that all steps be taken to implement the decision dated 23.10.2020 of the
Government of India, Ministry of Finance so that benefit as contemplated
by the Government of India percolates to those for whom the financial benefits
have been envisaged and extended. Thus, the Supreme Court disposed the writ
petition.