A technocrat-turned-public interest litigant, Raghunath Shankar Kelkar, has challenged the Reserve Bank of India's move to deposit abroad 265.49 tonnes of gold out of its total stock of 557.75 tonnes by filing a public interest litigation in the Bombay High Court and has demanded that the precious metal be brought back into the country according to the provisions of the law.
Kelkar, 56, who used to manufacture computers, has filed the petition as he found that the move by the central bank contradicts Section 33(5) of Reserve Bank of India Act of 1934, which stipulates that 85 per cent of the bank's gold reserves should be kept in India.
The Bombay High Court bench, comprising D.D. Sinha and V.K. Tahilramani, heard the petition recently. The court noted that no one appeared for the RBI. The order stated, "Considering the issue involved in the present public interest lititation, we grant one opportunity to the RBI to put an appearance through its lawyer on the next day of hearing and assist the court."
Kelkar filed the petition on March 1. He said that he had sent three notices of the issue to the RBI, eliciting no reply. He has made the Government of India another respondent in this case. Kelkar is an avid RBI watcher.
He read the 17th half yearly report of RBI on management of foreign exchange reserves, in which the bank has said, "The Reserve Bank held 557.75 tonnes of gold, forming about 9.2 per cent of the total foreign exchange reserves. Of these 265.49 tonnes are held abroad in deposits or safe custody with the Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements."
He said that the RBI move was in violation of the legal provision as the bank had put 46 per cent of its gold reserves out of the country.
The reason given for the action is that of safe custody. "Does the RBI mean that gold is unsafe in India? Does the RBI think that Indian security forces are incapable of guarding the gold treasure of the country?" Kelkar asked.
The full read is at http://www.gata.org/node/11348
My comment: Just imagine the problems if more nations demand their gold back. After all, how much of their gold might now have more than one claim of ownership?
One wonders how so many nations were conned in the first place to not store their gold in their own countries. They are perfectly capable of doing this simple task.
