&w=3840&q=100)
RBI Guv flags crypto concerns, says it may hamper financial stability
RBI Governor Sanjay Malhotra on Friday said the central bank is concerned about cryptocurrencies as it can hamper financial stability.
Malhotra was replying to a question during a media interaction post the RBI monetary policy about the developments in the backdrop of the Supreme Court's observation on crypto currency last month.
"There is no new development as far as crypto is concerned. A committee of the government is looking after this. Of course, as you are aware, we are concerned about crypto because that can hamper financial stability and monetary policy," Malhotra said.
The Supreme Court has last month asked the Centre to formulate a "clear cut" policy on regulating cryptocurrency, while underlining its impact on the economy.
A Supreme Court bench termed the Bitcoin trade as an illicit trade more or less like "hawala" business.
India is currently working on a discussion paper for cryptocurrencies and an inter-ministerial group (IMG), comprising officials from RBI, Sebi and finance ministry, is looking into global norms.
In absence of any regulation, cryptocurrency is not yet illegal in India.
The discussion paper will give the stakeholders an opportunity to give their views before India decides on its policy stance on cryptocurrencies.
In 2022, the government announced a flat 30 per cent tax on gains arising from cryptocurrencies. Taxing income from cryptocurrencies does not necessarily and explicitly legalise cryptocurrencies.
Currently, crypto assets are unregulated in India. Here cryptocurrencies are regulated from the perspective of anti-money laundering law. Besides that, income tax and TDS is levied on earnings from trading in such virtual digital assets. Also, GST is levied on cryptocurrency exchanges.
It may be noted that, on March 4, 2021, the Supreme Court had set aside an RBI circular of April 6, 2018, prohibiting banks and entities regulated by it from providing services in relation to virtual currencies.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
24 minutes ago
- The Wire
Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Law Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma Rekha Sharma 4 minutes ago The Supreme Court's swift move to initiate contempt proceedings against journalist Ajay Shukla for a critical YouTube video contrasts sharply with the way BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was handled. Nishikant Dubey (left) and Ajay Shukla in the background. In the foreground is the Supreme Court. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now On May 30, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ajay Shukla, a Chandigarh-based journalist, for posting a video on YouTube allegedly containing scathing and scandalous remarks against some senior judges of the Supreme Court. The bench observed that though the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this is subject to reasonable restrictions and that such a right does not permit someone to defame a judge or bring into disrepute the institution of the judiciary. Having said so, the court directed that the offending video be taken down forthwith. It also asked the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to assist the court on the next date of hearing. Though the video is no longer available, it is widely believed that contain some allegedly objectionable remarks against Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line for the Chief Justiceship, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who retired mid-May. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the dignity, majesty and honour of the Supreme Court, or for that matter any court of justice must be protected at all cost by every person including by the Supreme Court itself. That said, fair criticism of a judicial decision and the conduct of a judge – provided it is done in good faith and on accurate facts – also needs to be equally protected. In this background, while no one can question the right and the prerogative of the Supreme Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shukla, the action taken has given rise to certain questions. Not very long ago, highly objectionable and vicious remarks were made by Nishikant Dubey, a Lok Sabha member of the ruling party, against the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Dubey held him singularly responsible for all the alleged 'civil wars' in the country. He also alleged that the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy. These remarks were not only highly toxic and outrageous, they had the potential to rock the very foundation of our judicial system and erode the people's faith in the judiciary and almost bordered on 'blasphemy'. And yet, even though the fountain head of the judiciary was personally targeted, it neither caused any stir nor a ripple. There was a sphinx like silence. No judge deemed it fit to issue any suo motu criminal contempt notice against the errant MP. It was the Supreme Court Bar Association which raised its voice, and urged the Attorney General to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Dubey. The AG neither on his own nor on the request of the Bar Association has till date given or declined to give his consent. This, despite the fact that he as the first law officer of the country, has a duty to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court of which he is an integral part. It ultimately fell on the lot of Justice Khanna himself to give a befitting response to the likes of Dubey. Though the bench headed by him dismissed a petition which sought contempt action against the MP, he gave a very measured and dignified response to him. Holding that the comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges, he wrote that the courts are not so fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. He further observed, 'We do not believe that the confidence and the credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such statements'. Kudos to Justice Sanjiv Khanna for such a befitting response. Going by media reports, Justice Bela Trivedi has not been given a farewell by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The CJI is reported to have expressed his disapproval over the decision of the Bar Association, and so has Justice A.G. Masih, who said that tradition must be followed. It is for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court that such a tradition has been broken. The bar, it is said, is the judge of the judges. It is not for nothing that Justice Bela Trivedi has been denied the honour of a farewell by the bar. The question is why did things come to such a pass? It should set both bench and bar thinking. Undoubtedly, a long standing tradition has been broken but, then, judgeship is not a blank cheque. It comes with responsibility. The bar not only helps judges make the justice delivery system work, it also acts as a watchdog. The bar has, by its action, sent a loud and clear message. It is time for judges to remember that they too are under watch. They may, in a given case, fail to grasp some suspected hidden meaning of a column written in English by an Oxford educated professor and leave the job of deciphering it to some police officer, and that too not from a particular state. But if they fail to take action against a minister who made a highly objectionable statement in simple and understandable Hindi, it does raise eyebrows. It is in such matters that the bar has to play its role. And, if it does play its role, there should be no protest. Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Central Hall | Governors Increasingly Acting like Political Agents as Constitutional Morality Erodes 'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC Indian Astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla-led Mission to International Space Station Pushed to June 10 'Highly Irresponsible': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Faces Supreme Court Wrath Why the Process of 44 MLAs 'Forming the Government' in Manipur Is Not Straightforward US Supreme Court Rules $1.29 Bn Lawsuit Against ISRO-Owned Antrix to Proceed Modi-Shah Face Dilemma As Their Stormtroopers Cross All Limits of Propriety The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Cheaper home and car loans: India Inc gets a booster and fire power to drive growth
Borrowing costs at India's two most rate-sensitive sectors - property and automobiles - are set to head South soon after the central bank Friday made its steepest rate cut since March 2020 and promised ample liquidity in the shape of the lowest cash reserve ratio (CRR) on record. The Nifty Realty index surged nearly 5%, even dwarfing gains for financial stocks, reflecting the likely impact of the big-bang policy moves on home purchases. Home, personal, and car loans tied to external benchmarks, such as the repo rate, will see an immediate downward reduction. However, loans tied to the marginal cost of funds-based lending rate (MCLR), like corporate exposures, will take longer to head lower. Policy action, Reserve Bank of India ( RBI ) Governor Sanjay Malhotra said, is geared toward boosting broader credit demand for which monetary support is a "necessary condition", although not sufficient. "We see this as an opportunity to step up credit deployment, especially towards productive sectors and retail demand, while continuing to support MSMEs, retail, agri, and other priority segments," said Ashok Chandra, MD & CEO of Punjab National Bank . On Friday, the RBI reduced the benchmark repo rate by 50 basis points to 5.5%, taking the total cut to 100 bps in the current rate easing cycle that began in February. Furthermore, the RBI also reduced the CRR or the funds lenders must park with the RBI, by a percentage point starting September, promising to add $30 billion of liquidity in phases and helping reduce borrowing costs. Before the cut, State Bank of India , the largest mortgage lender, was charging 8-8.65% interest on home loans . As per a Paisabazaar analysis, if the home loan rate falls to 7.5%, a loan of ?75 lakh with a tenure of 20 years would see EMI fall to ?60,419 a month. At 8% a borrower would pay ?62,733 as monthly interest payout. Hot Property Stocks such as Godrej Properties , Oberoi Realty , DLF and Prestige surged between 5% and 6.75% on unusually large volumes, overshadowing gains at large financiers that are expectedly the biggest gainers from the policy moves Friday. The Nifty Automobile index climbed 1.5%, with truckmaker Ashok Leyland leading the list of gainers at 3.6%. The RBI's decision is also expected to help improve housing affordability and prop up demand for residential properties across the country, especially in the mid-income and affordable housing segments, experts said. With home loan rates likely to ease following this rate reduction, realty developers are optimistic about a fresh wave of end-user activity. "The rate cut is expected to bring down home loan interest rates, improving affordability and widening access to homeownership. This could provide a meaningful push for first-time buyers and households looking to upgrade, especially in price-sensitive urban and suburban markets. We expect this move to translate into increased enquiries and faster decision-making in the coming months," said Deepak Goradia, chairman of Dosti Realty. Lower borrowing costs could also unlock fence-sitter demand in tier II and III cities, where salaried buyers are highly rate-sensitive.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
34 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Kilmar Abrego Garcia charged with illegally transporting migrants
By Chris Strohm, Myles Miller and Bob Van Voris Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man mistakenly deported by the Trump administration to a prison in El Salvador, has been brought back to the US to face federal charges that he illegally transported undocumented immigrants within the country. Abrego Garcia was indicted by a grand jury in Tennessee in May, according to court filings. He appeared in a Tennessee courtroom Friday, hours after he was returned to the US, ABC reported. Attorney General Pam Bondi said an investigation determined that he was member of the criminal gang MS-13 and a 'danger to our community.' Abrego Garcia's case became a lightning rod over President Donald Trump's immigration policies, which have seen the administration move to ramp up deportations of undocumented migrants. The Supreme Court had told the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. 'Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant and they agreed to return him to our country,' Bondi said at a press conference in Washington. 'Upon completion of sentence we anticipate he will be returned to his home country of El Salvador.' The US is seeking to have Abrego Garcia detained as a flight risk and a danger. The charges could result in him spending the rest of his life behind bars, prosecutors said. 'Today's action proves what we've known all along — that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so,' Andrew Rossman, a lawyer for Abrego Garcia, said in an emailed statement. 'It's now up to our judicial system to see that Mr. Abrego Garcia receives the due process that the constitution guarantees to all persons.' According to court documents, Abrego Garcia's role, with other unidentified people, was to pick up migrants in the Houston area after they'd illegally crossed the border into Texas, then move them to other parts of the country. Abrego Garcia and other members of the group also allegedly transported guns and drugs illegally purchased in Texas into Maryland. Before he was removed from the country, an immigration judge had ruled that Abrego Garcia could not be sent to his home country of El Salvador, finding that he would be at risk of harm under the Convention Against Torture. The government later admitted he'd been deported to El Salvador in error. After he was removed from the country in March, his lawyers asked a federal court in Maryland to order his return to the US. Abrego Garica was initially kept in El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, but was later moved to another facility. On April 10, the US Supreme Court agreed with US District Judge Paula Xinis that Abrego Garcia shouldn't have been deported and ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' his release from Salvadoran custody. Trump and El Salvador President Nayib Bukele initially responded by claiming they had no power to return Abrego Garcia. Xinis then ordered the government to answer questions detailing its efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. A US appeals court upheld the order in a harshly critical opinion on April 17. 'Thanks to the bright light that has been shined on Abrego Garcia, this investigation continued,' Bondi said Friday. Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland Democratic senator who visited Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, said that the administration will now 'have to make its case in the court of law.' 'For months the Trump administration flouted the Supreme Court and our Constitution,' Van Hollen said. 'Today, they appear to have finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights afforded to everyone in the United States.'
