What is govt's 'tearing hurry' to 'fix' RBI capital framework: Chidambaram
New Delhi, Nov 11: Former Union finance minister P Chidambaram Sunday asked the Centre what was its "tearing hurry" to "fix" the capital framework of Reserve Bank of India when the ruling dispensation had just four months to complete the term.
In a series of tweets, the senior Congress leader slammed the government for allegedly seeking funds from the RBI despite claiming that its (Centre) fiscal math was correct.
"The NDA government has competed 4 years and 6 months of its term. It has effectively 4 months left. What is the tearing hurry to 'fix' the capital framework of RBI?" he said.
Chidambaram said if the government did not need any more money this financial year, why was it "mounting pressure" on the central bank in the last four months of its tenure.
"Why did it keep silent for 4 years and 6 months?" he said.
The Congress leader said the government had claimed that its "fiscal math is correct" and "boasts" that it had given up Rs 70,000 crore of borrowing for 2018-19.
"If so, why does it need money from the reserves of RBI this year?" he said.
The central government had on Friday said it was discussing an "appropriate" size of capital reserves that the central bank must maintain, but denied seeking a massive capital transfer from the RBI.
The RBI has a massive Rs 9.59 lakh crore reserves and the government, if reports are to be believed, wants the central bank to part with a third of that fund -- an issue which along with easing of norms for weak banks and raising liquidity has brought the two at loggerheads in recent weeks.
Economic Affairs Secretary Subhash Chandra Garg took to Twitter on Friday to clarify that the government was not in any dire need of funds and that there was no proposal to ask the RBI to transfer Rs 3.6 lakh crore.
"There is no proposal to ask RBI to transfer (Rs) 3.6 or (Rs) 1 lakh crore, as speculated," he tweeted.
"Government's FD (fiscal deficit) in FY 2013-14 was 5.1%. From 2014-15 onwards, Government has succeeded in bringing it down substantially. We will end the FY 2018-19 with FD of 3.3%. Government has actually foregone (Rs) 70,000 crore of budgeted market borrowing this year," Garg said.
The official said the only proposal under discussion was to "fix appropriate economic capital framework of RBI". Economic capital framework refers to the risk capital required by the central bank while taking into account different risks.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Delhi HC Judge Justice Sharma to pass order on recusal plea by Kejriwal at 4.30 pm
New Delhi (PTI): Delhi High Court Judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday said that she would pronounce her verdict at 4.30 pm on pleas by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking her recusal in the liquor policy case, as she took on record additional pleadings by the AAP chief on his plea.
Justice Sharma said although the pronouncement was scheduled for 2:30 pm, she was "going out of her way" in accepting Kejriwal's rejoinder as a written submission in the matter.
The former chief minister virtually appeared before the judge through video conferencing and urged her to take on record his rejoinder to the written submissions filed by the CBI.
Even as Kejriwal asserted that the registry's refusal to take his rejoinder on record was "miscarriage of justice", Justice Sharma remarked that since he was not being represented by a lawyer, the court went "out of its way" for him when it permitted him to file his additional affidavit last week even after the order on the recusal issue was reserved.
The judge said that as per the registry's rule, a party in-person must take permission from the court to file anything and since the present case was not "extraordinary", the same practice was being followed.
She added that in law, there is no concept of filing a "rejoinder" to the opposite party's written submissions, and she would permit Kejriwal to tender his pleadings as written submissions instead, so that he does not feel that he was not heard.
"You say you have respect for me. I have respect for every litigant. The rule of court will not be changed for anyone so I will treat it as written submissions. I am taking it on record. I am giving the indulgence to Mr Kejriwal," the court stated.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appeared for the CBI and opposed Kejriwal's request to file rejoinder. Mehta said nowhere in the country were pleadings taken on record after order was reserved a court.
He also said there is no concept of filing rejoinder to a written submission, and the court should do what it would do for any ordinary litigant.
Kejriwal had raised several objections against the judge hearing the CBI's plea against his discharge in the liquor policy case, including that she had earlier denied him relief on his petition challenging his arrest and refused to grant relief on the bail pleas of other accused, including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha.
He also claimed that Justice Sharma had made "strong and conclusive" findings.
The former Delhi chief minister further alleged a "direct conflict of interest", claiming that the judge's children are empanelled central government lawyers who receive work through the solicitor general, who is appearing in the matter for the CBI.
Besides Kejriwal, the applications for recusal of the judge were also filed by AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak.
Other respondents, including Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai, have also sought her recusal.
Solicitor General urged Justice Sharma to initiate contempt action against Kejriwal and others for seeking her recusal.
Terming concerns by Kejriwal and others as "apprehensions of an immature mind," Mehta told the court it was a matter of "institutional respect" and Justice Sharma should not succumb to pressure as her recusal on "unfounded allegations" would set a bad precedent.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor policy case, saying that the CBI's case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
