The court, which was initially reluctant to entertain the PIL on the issue by terming it as a policy matter, decided to take the aid of Attorney General G E Vahanvati or Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman after the petitioner submitted that RBI nod was missing in allowing the FDI in retail sector.
It was submitted by advocate M L Sharma, who filed the PIL on the issue, that retail trading is strictly prohibited under the law of Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) under which the power to come out with circular is vested with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) which has not issued any regulation after 2008.
He said government circular on the FDI in retail after bringing amendment in the law was without authority.
Taking note of his submission, a bench comprising justices R M Lodha and A R Dave said, "we are concerned and want a clarification that in the absence of regulation of RBI, can this circular have legal sanction."
"We just want to have little clarity on the issue because some link is missing," the bench said while asking the advocate to delete the name of the Prime Minister as a party in the petition.
After making the observation, the bench made an effort to seek the assistance of the Solicitor General during the hearing which did not materialise.
The court posted the matter for hearing on October 12 asking the advocate to serve the copy of the writ petition either to the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.(More)
