Delhi High Court Refuses To Hear Plea For Recovery Of ₹1 Trillion Debt Allegedly Owed By Pakistan To India
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking recovery of ₹1 trillion debt allegedly owed by Pakistan to India. Stating that the plea involves issues pertaining to government policy, the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla refused to interfere in the matter.Om Sehgal, party in person, produced several documents to argue that India has...
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking recovery of ₹1 trillion debt allegedly owed by Pakistan to India. Stating that the plea involves issues pertaining to government policy, the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla refused to interfere in the matter.
Om Sehgal, party in person, produced several documents to argue that India has loaned approximately ₹300 crore to Pakistan, popularly known as 'Pre-partition Debt'. He claimed that the sum to be repaid with interest now amounts to over 1 trillion rupees. However, it is averred that Pakistan has not paid even a single installment of debt or interest for any single year during past 75 years. Nevertheless, India has still not declared the debt as NPA.
He therefore sought directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Finance to take immediate steps for recovery of the sum, allegedly being used to "attack India".
"Pakistan is committing subversive activities in India, specially in Kashmir. This all is being done with money that belongs to India. That this realization of (our own) money, shall limit the resources of Pakistan and its terror brigade, to harm innocent people of India," Sehgal argued.
It was further argued that it is the duty of the Government of India to recover the debt amount from Pakistan, with normal interest and normal penal interest, as applicable to any bonafide Indian and as per the banking rules and norms of State Bank of India/Reserve Bank of India.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma on the other hand told the Court that the issue is a matter of government policy and a writ of mandamus is not warranted in such cases.
Stating that the Central Government is cognizant of the issue and since it is a matter of state policy, the High Court said that no direction can be passed. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Om Sehgal v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 216