Is FDI a gimmick or has it led to investments?: SC
Related
Top Stories
- Manmohan-Li talks: PM takes tough line on incursion issue
- Spot-Fixing: Sreesanth reveals bookies lured India players with cars, women
- Back in J&K, Liyaqat says Delhi cops tried to kill him in fake encounter
- BJP makes Narendra Modi's close confidant Amit Shah in charge of Uttar Pradesh
- Jagan Reddy case: Accused Andhra minister resigns, Sabitha may follow suit

The Supreme Court Tuesday questioned the Centre if its FDI in multi-brand retail policy was only a "political gimmick" or had fructified into some investments as well.
"It is six to seven weeks that Parliament passed the policy. Have you brought some investment or was it a mere political gimmick?" asked a bench led by Justice R M Lodha, even as Attorney General G E Vahanvati defended the FDI Bill that the UPA government managed to get cleared in Parliament against stiff opposition by the BJP.
Vahanvati submitted that the policy was part of a series of reforms and that its results would be seen in due course.
"Reforms can go on but that should not close the door for small traders," replied the court. The bench also remained unimpressed with the attorney general's reply that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) could address issues like pricing etc. "How many people or small traders would go to the CCI?" the bench said.
Indicating that it was open to vetting the new policy, which allows up to 51 per cent FDI in multi-brand retail, the bench said it had to be ensured that there were adequate safeguards to protect the interests of small traders who would be compeing with multinational companies. "There is an apprehension. How are you going to take care of the interests of small traders? It is going to affect the fundamental rights to carry out trade? What are the checks that you are going to put to remove the obstruction as far as their trade is concerned? Some regulatory measures have to be there to ensure that they (small traders) are not affected," it said.
Vahanvati tried to reason that this was not the issue under consideration of the court and further that it was a policy decision, taken after necessary amendments in the RBI rules and a voting in Parliament.
... contd.
Editors’ Pick
- Former Ranji player among 3 more held
- Rajasthan Royals to file FIR against tainted trio
- If found guilty, BCCI to ask ICC to erase Sreesanth records
- Top cops among 42 named in death of blast accused
- Manmohan-Li talks: PM takes tough line on incursion issue
- Security forces blame Maoists, villagers say CoBRA man was killed in 'friendly fire'
- Travellers’ nightmare: Yellow fever vaccine stocks run out, production unit awaits repair


'Railway official was eyeing lucrative electrical post'
Bansal won't quit, Congress decides to weather new crisis
Sarabjit Singh cremated with state honours
SC: Kalam favoured clemency for Assam convict, MHA kept Pratibha in dark




















