Gajendra Sharma vs Union Of India on 27 November, 2020
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
Gajendra Sharma vs Union Of India on 27 November, 2020
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M.R. Shah
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.825 OF 2020 GAJENDRA SHARMA ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
By this writ petition filed under Article 32 of
the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for
directions declaring the notification dated
Signature Not Verified
27.03.2020 issued by Reserve Bank of India as ultra
Digitally signed by
MEENAKSHI KOHLI
Date: 2020.11.27
13:02:04 IST
Reason:
2
vires to the extent it charges interest on the loan
amount during the moratorium period.
2. The petitioner’s case and the pleadings in the
writ petition briefly noted are:-
2.1 The petitioner has availed a home loan of
amount of Rs.37,48,000/- from the ICICI Bank.
After declaration of Coronavirus (COVID-19)
as a pandemic by World Health Organisation,
the National Disaster Management Authority
exercising the jurisdiction under Section 6
of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 to take
effective measures to prevent the spread of
COVID-19 across the country and for
mitigation of the threatening disastrous
situation has issued notification dated
27.03.2020 directing the Ministry,
Departments of Government of India, State
Governments and the State authorities to take
measures for ensuring social distancing so as
3to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the
country. Necessary guidelines were also
issued under Section 10(2)(1) by the National
Executive Committee.
2.2 The Reserve Bank of India on 27.03.2020
issued Statement of Development and
Regulatory Policies where inter alia certain
regulatory measures were announced to
mitigate the burden of debt servicing brought
about by disruptions on account of COVID-19
pandemic and to ensure the continuity of
viable businesses. The notification dated
27.03.2020 was issued by the Reserve Bank of
India for rescheduling of payments – Term
Loans and Working Capital Facilities.
Relevant part of the notification relevant
for the present case is as follows:-
“(i) Rescheduling of Payments –
Term Loans and Working Capital
Facilities
2. In respect of all term loans
(including agricultural term
loans, retail and crop loans), all
4commercial banks (including
regional rural banks, small
finance banks and local area
banks), co-operative banks, all-
India Financial Institutions, and
NBFCs (including housing finance
companies) (“lending
institutions”) are permitted to
grant a moratorium of three months
on payment of all
instalments1 falling due between
March 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020.
The repayment schedule for such
loans as also the residual tenor,
will be shifted across the board
by three months after the
moratorium period. Interest shall
continue to accrue on the
outstanding portion of the term
loans during the moratorium
period.”
2.3 The petitioner’s case in the writ petition is
that when all the means of livelihood have
been curtailed by the Government of India by
imposition of complete lockdown pan India,
due to worldwide spread of COVID-19 pandemic,
the petitioner has no way to continue to his
work and earn livelihood. The petitioner’s
case is that imposition of interest during
the moratorium period is ultra vires and
5
shall defeat the purpose of permitting the
moratorium of loans.
2.4 Referring to notification dated 27.03.2020,
petitioner pleads that 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. Petitioner’s case is
that 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.
Petitioner’s case is that 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.
6
2.5 The petitioner’s case is that 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. The
petitioner’s case is that although the
initial lockdown was for a period of three
weeks but it was extended further. The
Reserve Bank of India by a subsequent
notification dated 23.05.2020 due to the
extension of the lockdown and due to
disruption on account of COVID-19 has
directed all commercial banks to extend the
moratorium by another three months, i.e.,
from 01.06.2020 to 31.08.2020 on payment of
all installments in respect of term loans.
The notification dated 23.05.2020 directed
for repayment schedule for term loans as also
the residual tenor will be shifted across the
7
board. Notification further stated that
“interest shall continue to accrue on the
outstanding portion of the term loans during
the moratorium period”.
2.6 The petitioner in the writ petition has
prayed for following reliefs:-
a) Issue an appropriate Writ,
Order or Direction in the
nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or
Direction declaring the
portion of impugned
Notification dated 27.03.2020
issued by Respondent No.2 as
ultra vires to the extent it
charges interest on the loan
amount during the moratorium
period, which create hardship
to the Petitioner being
borrower and creates hindrance
and obstruction in “right to
life” guaranteed by Article 21
of the Constitution of India;
and
b) Issue a Writ, Order or
Direction in the nature of
Mandamus thereby directing the
Respondents to provide relief
in repayment of loan by not
charging interest during the
moratorium period declared by
Notification dated 27.03.2020;
and/or
8
c) Pass any other order or orders
which may be deemed fit and
proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and
in the interest of justice.”
2.7 Notices were issued in the writ petition.
While hearing the matter on 17.06.2020 the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner have been noted to the following
effect:-
“We have heard learned counsel
for the petitioner(s).
Learned counsel for the
petitioner(s) submits that under
the Disaster Management Act, 2005,
the Central Government has ample
power and jurisdiction to grant
relief with regard to loan which
is specifically provided for. It
is submitted that the circular of
the Reserve Bank of India dated
27.03.2020 although grant
moratorium but substantially no
relief is given to the borrowers.
The two-fold submissions have been
made by learned counsel for the
petitioner(s). It is submitted
that if moratorium is being
granted for a period of three
months, the entire amount payable
9
including principal and interest
should not be charged during
moratorium 3 period. Secondly, at
least the demand of interest on
interest should not be made and
these reliefs can be extended by
the Central Government and the
Reserve Bank of India.”
2.8 In the writ petition, affidavits have been
filed both by the Union of India as well as
the Reserve Bank of India. In the affidavits
filed on behalf of the Union of India, it was
pleaded that the Central Government is fully
conscious of the difficulties faced by the
various sectors and the stakeholders of
various sectors within the purview of the
Ministry of Finance and other Ministries. It
is further pleaded that Finance Ministry,
after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic
globally, has taken several measures of
relief dealing with the potential problems
faced by several sectors and in several
spheres of all financial worlds. In the
affidavit filed dated 31.08.2020, details of
10
number of measures to mitigate financial
suffering have been enumerated. It has been
further pleaded that Finance Ministry took
the initiative and interacted with Reserve
Bank of India requesting the Reserve Bank of
India to provide for various measures of
relief to the borrowers. The affidavit also
enumerates different reliefs and measures
taken by Reserve Bank of India with regard to
moratorium. Reference has been made to two
circulars dated 06.08.2020 issued by Reserve
Bank of India facilitating revival of real
sector activities and mitigating the impact
on the ultimate borrowers by enabling lenders
to grant concessions to borrowers for COVID-
19-related stress in personal, MSME and
corporate loans. The Union of India has
filed further affidavits dated 09.10.2020,
23.10.2020 and 17.11.2020.
11
2.9 The Reserve Bank of India has also filed a
counter affidavit, a consolidated counter
affidavit dated 09.10.2020, additional
affidavit dated 09.10.2020 and further
additional affidavit dated 01.11.2020.
Indian Bank Association has also filed
affidavits bringing on record various
circulars issued by Reserve Bank of India,
State Bank of India etc.
3. We have heard Shri Rajiv Dutta, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner. Shri Tushar Mehta,
learned Solicitor General, Shri V. Giri, learned
senior counsel and Shri Ramesh Babu M.R., learned
counsel appearing for the Reserve Bank of India and
some of the counsels, who had appeared for
intervenors.
4. Hearing of this writ petition took place
alongwith other writ petitions on different dates.
When the matter was heard on 19.11.2020, learned
12
counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Shri Rajiv Dutta
submitted that in view of the affidavits, which have
been filed in the present writ petition by the
respondent No.1, this writ petition be disposed of.
We, thus, proceed to decide the Writ Petition (C) No.
825 of 2020.
5. In course of hearing of these petitions, learned
senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajiv Duta
has expressed satisfaction on the measures taken by
the Government of India with respect to borrowers in
which category the petitioner belongs. Learned senior
counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision
of the Central Government to forego interest on eight
specified categories of loans paid upto Rs.2 Crores
has come as a great relief.
6. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
submits that the Central Government is fully
conscious of the difficulties faced by the various
sectors and the stakeholders of various sectors and
13
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. Shri
Mehta has referred to number of measures taken by the
Central Government to mitigate the financial
suffering as detailed in its affidavits as noted
above. In its affidavit dated 23.10.2020, it is
stated that the decision taken by the Central
Government for granting various reliefs for the
COVID-19 pandemic for benefit of waiver of interest
upto Rs.2 Crores in eight categories has been
approved by the Union Cabinet in its meeting dated
21.10.2020 and Ministry of Finance has issued
directions dated 23.10.2020 on the subject, which has
been brought on record alongwith the affidavit. Shri
Mehta submits that 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
14
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.
7. Shri Giri also submits that Reserve Bank of India
has also taken follow-up action in pursuance of the
policy decision taken by the Finance Ministry. He
submits that the Reserve Bank of India has issued
Circular dated 26.10.2020 to all commercial banks,
all primary co-operative banks and all All India
Financial Institutions and all non-banking financial
companies and were advised to be guided by the Scheme
announced by the Government of India dated
23.10.2020.
8. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
15
9. The pandemic COVID-19 has not only caused 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. Due to
lockdown imposed by the Government of India in
exercise of powers under the Disaster Management Act,
2005, there can be no denial that most of the
businesses including private sector as well as public
sector has been adversely affected. For several
months, large number of industries were not allowed
to function and exemptions were granted only to few
of the industries to run and carry on its activities,
which were found essential and necessary in the fact
situation. Although, gradually, due to Unlock- 1, 2
and 3, the industries and other business activities
have been restored and the economy of the country is
on track although at a slow pace. The moratorium
period as granted by the Reserve Bank of India vide
orders dated 27.03.2020 and 23.05.2020 have continued
from 01.03.2020 to 31.08.2020, i.e., for the period
16
of six months. As submitted by the learned Solicitor
General and reflected by the affidavits filed on
behalf of the Union of India, it is clear that
Central Government was fully conscious of the
difficulties faced by the various sectors and the
stakeholders of various sectors and different
measures by Finance Ministry have been taken in the
above reference, which has been detailed in the
affidavits dated 31.08.2020, 09.10.2020 and
23.10.2020.
10. For the purposes of the present case, it is
relevant to notice paragraphs 3 and 4 of the
affidavit dated 23.10.2020 filed on behalf of the
Union of India in which following has been stated:-
“3. I state and submit that as submitted
in the previous affidavits, the Central
Government took many Policy decisions for
granting various reliefs for the Covid
pandemic which is a ‘disaster’ within the
meaning of the Disaster Management Act,
including a policy decision whereby the
following borrowers were declared eligible
for the benefit of waiver of ‘interest on
interest’:
17
(i) MSME loans up to Rs. 2 crore
(ii) Education loans up to Rs. 2 crore
(iii) Housing loans up to Rs. 2 crore
(iv) Consumer durable loans up to Rs. 2
crore
(v) Credit card dues up to Rs. 2 crore
(vi) Automobile loans up to Rs. 2 crore
(vii) Personal loans to professionals up
to Rs. 2 crore
(viii) Consumption loans up to Rs. 2 crore
It is submitted that the preparation of
the Scheme in this behalf was under
contemplation and it was also necessary to
formalise the said policy decision by
following certain mandatory procedure
required by law.
4. I state and submit that the aforesaid
decision taken by the Ministry of Finance
Government of India, has been approved by
the Union Cabinet in its meeting held on
21.10.2020. Pursuant to approval by the
Union Cabinet, the Ministry of Finance has
issued Scheme providing for, broadly, the
following mechanism,
(a) The eligible borrowers mentioned in
the previous Affidavit [and described
in detail in clause 4 of the Scheme
annexed herewith and marked as
18
Annexure R-1] will be “eligible
beneficiaries” under the Scheme.
Under the Scheme, all lending
institutions [as defined under clause
3 of the Scheme] shall credit the
difference between compound interest
and simple interest in the respective
accounts of eligible borrowers for the
period between 1.3.2020 to 31.8.2020.
This amount shall be credited by
each of the lending institutions
referred to in clause 3 of the Scheme,
irrespective of whether such eligible
borrowers have fully availed or
partially availed or have not availed
of the moratorium viz. deferment in
payment of instalments as per the
Circulars dated 27.3.2020 and
23.5.2020 issued by RBI.
(b) After crediting the said amount in the
respective accounts of eligible
borrowers, the lending institutions
would claim reimbursement from the
Central Government through the nodal
agency of State Bank of India as
stipulated under the Scheme.
It is submitted that the aforesaid
decision is taken after careful
consideration, keeping in mind the
overall economic scenario, the nature
of borrowers, impact on the economy
and such other factors as a policy
decision earmarking the above referred
class of borrowers for grant of
benefits.”
19
11. The case of the present petitioner, who has taken
housing loan is fully covered by the decisions of the
Union of India as noted above, since the benefit has
been extended to the housing loan upto Rs.2 Crores,
i.e., in pursuance of the aforesaid decisions of the
Government of India, the Ministry of Finance had
issued order dated 23.10.2020 – Operational
Guidelines with regard to COVID-19 Reliefs, details
of order dated 23.10.2020 contains a heading “COVID-
19 Relief”, relevant portion of the Scheme is to the
following effect:-
“COVID-19 Relief
Scheme for grant of ex-gratia payment of
difference between compound interest and
simple interest for six months to
borrowers in specified loan accounts
(1.3.2020 to 31.8.2020)Operational Guidelines
1. Name of the scheme
This scheme shall be called “Scheme for
grant of ex-gratia payment of difference
between compound interest and simple
20interest for six months to borrowers in
specified loan accounts (1.3.2020 to
31.8.2020)”.
2. Object of the scheme
In view of the unprecedented and extreme
COVID-19 situation, the object of the
Scheme is to provide ex-gratia payment of
difference between compound interest and
simple interest by ways of relief for the
period from 1st March 2020 to 31st August
2020 to borrowers in specified loan
accounts. Such payment does not constitute
a contractual, legal or equitable
liability of the Central Government and is
only an ex-gratia payment to the following
designated class of borrowers in view of
the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. Applicability of the scheme
This scheme shall apply to all lending
institutions, which must be either a
banking company, or a Public Sector Bank,
or a Co-operative Bank [i.e., an Urban Co-
operative Bank or a State Co-operative
Bank or a District Central Co-operative
Bank], or a Regional Rural Bank, or an All
India Financial Institution, or a Non-
Banking Financial Company or a Housing
Finance Company registered with Reserve
Bank of India (RBI) or National Housing
Bank as the case may be. A Non-Banking
Financial Company—Micro Finance
Institution should be a member of a Self-
Regulatory Organisation (SRO) recognised
by RBI.
21
4. Eligibility criteria under the scheme
(1) Borrowers in the following
segments/classes of loans, who have loan
accounts having sanctioned limits and
outstanding amount of not exceeding Rs. 2
crores [aggregate of all facilities with
lending institutions] as on 29.2.2020,
shall be eligible under the Scheme:
(i) MSME loans
(ii) Education loans
(iii) Housing loans
(iv) Consumer durable loans
(v) Credit card dues
(vi) Automobile loans
(vii) Personal loans to professionals
(viii) Consumption loans
Any borrower whose aggregate of all
facilities with lending institutions is
more than Rs. 2 crores (sanctioned limits
or outstanding amount) will not be
eligible for ex-gratia payment under this
scheme.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”
12. The decision of the Government of India dated
23.10.2020 has also been communicated to all the
banks and other financial institutions. The Reserve
Bank of India has also issued necessary instructions
in the above regard. In the affidavit filed on
17.11.2020 on behalf of the Union of India, in
paragraphs 3 and 4 following has been stated:-
22
“3. It is submitted that as a follow-up
towards the implementation of the
aforesaid Scheme, the nodal agency, i.e.
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
crore in over 13.12 crore accounts of
borrowers covered under the said Scheme.
The data received is subject to final
reconciliation and audit. Information from
some remaining lenders are still being
received.
4. It is further submitted that various
lending institutions have put in place
Board-approved policies for restructuring
of accounts as per RBI circular dated
6.08.2020. Restructuring/resolution of
eligible accounts are being undertaken by
lending institutions on case-by-case
basis. Resolution plans in respect of
eligible personal, MSME and corporate
loans are to be invoked by 31.12.2020, and
time is still available to the account
holders for such invocation.”
13. Learned Solicitor General referring to above
measures taken by the Union of India submits that
above measures have been taken by the Government of
India in exercise of jurisdiction under the Disaster
23
Management Act, 2005 to mitigate the hardships and
miseries of few sectors. Shri Mehta submits that
with regard to other specified sectors, different
other measures have been taken, which we need not
note for the purposes of this case and which shall be
separately considered while considering writ
petitions raising such issues.
14. As noted above, Shri Rajiv Dutta, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner has expressed its
satisfaction on the measures taken by the Government
of India redressing grievances of the petitioner to
the extent as noted above. The Union of India having
taken specific measures vide its circular dated
23.10.2020, which has been brought on the record and
follow-up measures have also been taken in
consequence thereof, we dispose of the present writ
petition with 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
24
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.
All IAs, impleadment applications stand disposed of.
………………….J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
………………….J.
( R. SUBHASH REDDY )
………………….J.
( M.R. SHAH )
New Delhi,
November 27, 2020.