HomeNewsOpinionOpinion | Why the RBI Act, a British-era relic, is responsible for central bank-govt friction

Opinion | Why the RBI Act, a British-era relic, is responsible for central bank-govt friction

Much of central banking literature is focused on the need to have monetary policy rules and targets, ignoring this vital governance aspect of central banks. This needs to change

December 13, 2018 / 10:51 IST
Story continues below Advertisement

Amol Agrawal

The Reserve Bank of India Governor Urjit Patel resigned, ending another chapter of friction between the central bank and the government. Patel in his resignation statement expressed gratitude to colleagues and directors of the RBI board, which is interesting and ended it saying 'wish them all the best for the future'. But what exactly is this future?

In the last four tenures of RBI governors, we have seen how the friction between RBI and the government have become institutionalised. Right from YV Reddy to Patel, this has been the common theme. With each passing episode, the points of frictions have become more and wider.

Story continues below Advertisement

It started with FII inflows and rate increases in Reddy’s tenure. Subbarao fought over attempts to undermine RBI autonomy in the Financial Stability and Development Council. Raghuram Rajan battled the government over taking away the governor’s veto rights in the proposed Monetary Policy Committee and the setting up of a debt management office. Patel has had to deal with the RBI board taking centre stage, setting up a new payments regulator, overcapitalisation of RBI and so on.

It is as if there is a clause in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 or a vow taken by the governor, which says something like ‘on being appointed, it is the duty of the RBI governor to fight with the Finance Ministry and these fights become bitter as elections approach’.