LI Network
Published on: 12 September 2023 at 19:12 IST
The Bombay High Court has rejected a 2019 petition filed by a Mumbai resident, Manoranjan Roy, accusing the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) of engaging in wrongful activities during the currency exchange process amid the 2016 demonetisation drive [Manoranjan Santosh Roy v. UOI & Ors.].
The petitioner, Manoranjan Roy, who works as a tax volunteer, alleged that the RBI had failed to adhere to proper procedures during demonetisation and had assisted ineligible beneficiaries in exchanging their unaccounted ₹500 and ₹1,000 notes.
Roy based his claims on information he obtained through the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and annual reports, contending that the RBI was involved in a massive scandal.
In 2018, he also filed a complaint with the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau.
However, a division bench comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh determined that Roy’s complaint did not establish the commission of any offense or any irregularity or illegality as alleged. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no basis for initiating a criminal investigation against the RBI.
The Court emphasized the pivotal role played by the RBI in shaping the nation’s economy and advised caution when it comes to scrutinizing the monetary regulatory framework.
It stated that a need for an investigation by an independent agency should be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court before delving into such matters.
The bench also noted that Roy had been persistently seeking an investigation into the RBI’s statutory functioning since 2015. However, it found that his allegations of irregularities lacked the support of an independent financial expert’s report.
The Court’s judgment, delivered on September 8, highlighted that neither the petition’s contents nor the complaint were substantiated by an independent financial expert’s report demonstrating the commission of an offense warranting a detailed inquiry or investigation.
In light of the absence of such supporting information, the High Court concluded that the petition amounted to nothing more than an unfounded fishing expedition and subsequently dismissed it.
