AKSHAY N PATEL v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ss. 10(4), 11(1)
- Foreign Trade Act s. 3(2)
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 21
- Aadhar Act, 2016
Judgment
#11. Therefore, this Court finds that the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was correct in holding that Clause 2(iii) of the 2020 MTT Guidelines was a proportionate measure in ensuring the availability of sufficient domestic stock of PPE products. The measure was validly enacted, in pursuance of legitimate state interest and did not disproportionately impact the fundamental rights of the appellant. Hence, Clause 2(iii) passes muster under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21. [Para 58][280- H; 281-A] State Trading Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer AIR 1963 SC 1811; Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118; K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 : [2017] 10 SCR 569; K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1 : [2018] 8 SCR 1; Rustom Cavasji Cooper v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248 : [1970] 3 SCR 530; Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1 : [2017] 9 SCR 797; A B C D E F G H AKSHAY N PATEL v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. 237 Joseph Kuruvilla Vellukunnel v. Reserve Bank of India AIR 1962 SC 1371 – followed.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.