Change RBI Governor: Swamy to PM - The Hindu
Change RBI Governor: Swamy to PM - The Hindu
Read this along with my views(copied below) on B N Srikrishna's ET article on RBI Governor
M G Warrier
Read this along with my views(copied below) on B N Srikrishna's ET article on RBI Governor
Beyond
rights and wrongs*
This
refers to the article “Why Rajan is Wrong”(June 26). Co-authored by Justice B N
Srikrishna, Chairman and Shri D Swarup, Member-Secretary of the Financial
Sector Legislative Reforms Commission, the article attempts to presume and
conclude that RBI Governor was wrong in expressing his views against FSLRC
recommendation to super-impose a ‘Tribunal’ over RBI, when adequate facilities
for ‘appeal’ where absolutely needed, existed and saying that he was not
comfortable with re-inventing regulatory architecture in banking sector as the
existing ones were not in disrepair, in his June 17 speech.
Dr
Rajan had focused only on the aspects concerning RBI and the article has used
SEBi experiences and sanctity of ‘rule of law’ to conclude that ‘Rajan is
wrong’. While on the defensive, no harm in drawing arguments from anywhere, but
it would have appeared more convincing, if, some instances where RBI would have
performed better, were the proposed changes were in place had been quoted.
The
article states that ‘We reject Rajan’s claim that the regulator must continue
to have discretionary powers and should not be answerable’. Does this
‘rejection’ go well in the context of Dr
Rajan’s following observation?:
“Am
I arguing that no checks and balances are needed? Certainly not! But there are
already checks and balances in place, including review by constitutional courts
like high courts through writ petitions. Senior officers of the regulator are
appointed, and can be removed, by the government. The FSLRC recommends an
annual report to parliament, as well as regular discussions with
parliamentarians. These are good suggestions, which would add to oversight.”
It
may be recalled that the FSLRC report which was signed by seven members had
dissenting notes from K J Udeshi, P J Nayak and Y H Malegam(all members). In effect other than the chairman and the
Member-Secretary only two members had gone with the FSLRC report in its
entirety.
M
G WARRIER, Mumbai
*A slightly edited version of this response was published in ET on June 27, 2014M G Warrier
Comments