Several petitions seek proceedings against RBI and Governor Shaktikanta Das

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), its governor Shaktikanta Das and Chief Executive of Indian Banks Association (IBA) among others have had petitions filed against them for alleged flouting the SC’s earlier order. It was in regards to declaring the account of the petitioners as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) in connection with the moratorium matter.

The petition said that the respondents were duty bound to promulgate and ensure the compliance of the order of this court throughout the country but they deliberately didn’t. The Supreme Court’s order, dated September 3, 2020, was operational on all lending institutions and banks throughout the country and was passed in favor of all borrowers accounts to grant relief from financial stress during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Representing the petitioners, advocate Vishal Tiwari in the petition claimed that the contemptuous act of the respondents had not only disobeyed the court’s order but also caused severe irreparable damage and loss to the petitioners. “The petitioners have lost have lost their image and has been defamed as the possession notice was published in the newspapers of his locality which made the dignity of the petitioner lower.”

The petition claimed that the contemptuous act of all the respondents has shaken the confidence of the public and has degraded the trust of the borrowers. “In this COVID-19 pandemic where all borrowers are passing through the worst scenario and financial stress, the respondents’ alleged act is very disgraceful and contemptuous.” As such, the petitioners sought the issuance of notice to the alleged contemnors for willfully violating the order and directions of the Apex Court passed in a writ petition.

Also Read: Jaishankar defends India’s election rallies and mass gatherings amid second wave of COVID-19

Tiwari, in the petition, said a stay order was passed in the pandemic COVID-19 for the benefit of stressed borrowers so that they shall not suffer in present financial crisis during the pandemic. “There is already a slump in the work of the petitioner. The stay order was operating as a lifesaving drug but the contemptuous act of the respondent has brought a major setback to the petitioner and his survival has become critical.”