Section 28 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 once a watchdog against non-compliance by the Reserve Bank, now occupies a ghostly space in the statute. It used to spell out penalties for the Bank if it deviated from its prescribed duties under the Act. However, in 2016, it met its loss of life - disregarded using the Enforcement of security interest and recuperation of money owed legal guidelines and the Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act.
So, why dwell on a deleted rule? Because its absence can be as significant as its presence once was. It raises interesting questions:
- Why the axe? What led to the removal of this accountability measure? Did the framework change? Did concerns arise about its effectiveness? The official reasoning might offer valuable insights into the evolving dynamics of the financial system.
- Lessons learned? The omitted section serves as a reminder that even powerful institutions like the Reserve Bank need checks and balances. Its disappearance might prompt reflection on the importance of such safeguards in ensuring responsible practices and protecting interests within the financial landscape.
- Future implications? While Section 28 is gone, its absence doesn't guarantee eternal peace. Future amendments could reintroduce a similar accountability mechanism, or even reshape the role of the Reserve Bank within the SARFAESI framework.
Even in its ghostly form, Section 28 whispers stories of accountability, adaptation, and potential future changes. It nudges us to ask questions, learn from the past, and stay vigilant about the evolving dynamics of financial regulations
