send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Context
The Supreme Court has told the regulator that it is duty bound to disclose the list of defaulters and also make public its annual inspection reports of banks and financial institutions.
Background
IT is a fraught time for India’s central bank.
After a much publicised conflict between the government and the RBI, which finally led to the exit of Governor Urjit Patel and a knock to its institutional reputation, it has been dealt another blow by the Supreme Court.
The SC, while stating that the RBI had committed contempt of court, has warned the regulator that non-compliance of its order would be taken seriously as the bank had been refusing to provide information on all these under the RTI Act, citing its disclosure policy.
The other legal test the RBI faces is the unprecedented case of a regulated entity — the Kotak Bank — taking it to court over a regulatory ruling on lowering the shareholding of the original promoter of the bank.
Reasons for non- disclosure
1. Protecting Banking Secrecy – For long, the RBI has resisted disclosure of defaulters on the ground that it would violate banking secrecy laws while justifying holding back information and inspection reports of its supervisory teams on individual banks on fears of a weakening of trust among depositors and the impact on the financial markets and stocks of listed banks.
2. Low levels of financial Literacy – There is some truth to this argument in a country with low levels of financial literacy given that in the past, the country’s finance minister and the RBI were forced to publicly assure depositors and investors of a private bank that their money was safe after a run on the bank, fuelled by rumours.
3.Damages due to different interpretations –Similarly, realising the potential damage which could arise because of the interpretation of a provision in the Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance Bill on protection of deposits, the government had to step in last year to assuage concerns.
Arguments in favour of disclosure
That does not, however, mean non-disclosure in perpetuity.
Based on regulatory Findings –
One approach could be to provide this information after the RBI and the bank or an institution and its board have achieved closure and taken action based on regulatory findings, to limit any damage.
This could be preferably to Parliament, which could help strengthen prudential supervision.
Conclusion
As successive RBI governors and bankers have indicated, the pile up of bad loans in India is also because of judicial delays.
India’s two-year-old insolvency law has been a signature reform, but at the end of last year in over 30 per cent of the cases, the 270-day deadline had been breached.
It is with good reason that after the 2008 financial crisis, governments worldwide are focussed on financial stability. Any hasty step which endangers that mandate may prove costly.
By: VISHAL GOYAL ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses