top of page

By:

Correspondent

21 August 2024 at 10:20:16 am

Fee Signal

The government’s decision to create a legal framework for levying charges on UPI transactions has understandably triggered concern, even though it insists that ordinary users and small merchants will continue to enjoy free payments. The proposed amendment does not impose a fee on UPI today. But it removes the statutory barrier to one being imposed in the future, making the government’s reassurance less than the final word. The government argues that this is a measure for UPI’s long-term...

Fee Signal

The government’s decision to create a legal framework for levying charges on UPI transactions has understandably triggered concern, even though it insists that ordinary users and small merchants will continue to enjoy free payments. The proposed amendment does not impose a fee on UPI today. But it removes the statutory barrier to one being imposed in the future, making the government’s reassurance less than the final word. The government argues that this is a measure for UPI’s long-term sustainability. The world’s largest real-time payments system, which processed 2,366 crore transactions worth Rs. 29.9 lakh crore in July alone, cannot indefinitely depend on subsidies as transaction volumes, cybersecurity requirements and infrastructure costs rise. A nominal Merchant Discount Rate on larger merchant transactions, it says, would help create a more sustainable ecosystem without burdening ordinary users. That argument has merit. But so does the concern that a payment system which became a national habit precisely because it was cheap and frictionless should not slowly acquire a price tag. Once the legal machinery for charging exists, there is no guarantee that the boundary between large merchants and small ones, or between merchants and consumers, will remain permanently fixed. The Finance Minister has clarified that any Merchant Discount Rate will apply only to a limited set of merchant transactions above a threshold and will be nominal, well below card-payment rates. The details will eventually be decided by the UPI and Services Steering Committee headed by the National Payments Corporation of India. In other words, there is no charge on the table for the ordinary UPI user today. But there is now a legal mechanism for charges to be introduced tomorrow. That is precisely why any alarm, though exaggerated, cannot simply be dismissed. The government, through its clarification, has reassured that UPI’s free-to-consumer model remains intact. The important issue is whether its financing model can evolve without undermining the habits that made it revolutionary. UPI succeeded partly because it made digital payments cheaper and simpler than alternatives. There is also a larger principle at stake. UPI is not merely another commercial payments platform. It is the product of public investment, regulatory architecture and private innovation. The state should therefore be wary of treating its sustainability as an ordinary market problem. The sensible answer lies between free-for-all subsidies and indiscriminate fees: transparent thresholds, genuinely low MDRs, strong protection for small merchants and an absolute firewall around ordinary consumers. The government should publish the economic case for any future charge, including its effect on merchants and consumers. UPI was built on trust as much as technology. The government is right to protect its remarkable achievement. It should remember that keeping UPI free is not merely a political promise. It is part of the product.

Gadkari to move HC on E-20 slur

Seeks Rs 11 crore damages

Mumbai: In a pre-emptive legal move, Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways Nitin Gadkari has approached the Bombay High Court seeking permission to institute a civil defamation suit against the circulation of allegedly defamatory and deepfake content linking him to the Ethanol-Petrol blending programme on the Internet and social media.

 

Justice Abhay Ahuja on Monday granted Gadkari leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to institute the proposed suit after allowing his counsel, Sandeep S. Ladda, to satisfy the court on the issue of territorial jurisdiction and the cause of action.

 

Appearing for Gadkari, Ladda submitted that the proposed defendants include Google LLC, YouTube, Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook and Instagram), X Corp, the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Department of Telecommunications, besides certain unknown creators and disseminators of the content who have been arrayed as “Ashok Kumars | John Does”.

 

Ladda argued that the allegedly defamatory and deepfake content is accessible to Internet users in Mumbai and is intended for viewing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Consequently, a substantial part of the cause of action has arisen within Mumbai, conferring jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain the proposed suit.

 

Since the same content is also accessible outside Mumbai, a part of the cause of action has arisen beyond the court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction, thereby necessitating leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, Ladda submitted.

 

After hearing his submissions, Justice Ahuja granted him leave to file the civil suit in which he is seeking damages of Rs 11-cr from the defendants.

 

Gadkari is now expected to institute a substantive civil suit on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court against the social media platforms and other known and unknown entities alleged to have hosted or disseminated the impugned content. The matter is likely to be placed before Justice Arif Doctor in due course.

 

Different Ministry

In the proposed plaint, Gadkari, who represents the Nagpur Lok Sabha constituency, stated that the Ethanol Blending Programme (EBP) and the E-20 fuel policy are administered by the Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.

 

E-20 petrol, a blend of 20 pc ethanol and 80 pc petrol, is a key component of the government of India’s long-term strategy to slash crude oil imports, reduce emissions and boost the use of domestically produced biofuels.

 

However, in recent times, the E-20 policy has ignited concerns that older vehicles (manufactured pre-2023) – not designed specifically for the blended fuel - may experience compatibility issues, reduced fuel efficiency, and alleged corrosion of fuel-system components.

 

Nevertheless, some unknown persons have published posts and circulated deepfake content wrongly portraying Gadkari as personally responsible for the E-20 programme besides claiming that he and his family have allegedly benefited financially from it.

 

Rubbishing all such allegations as ‘false, malicious and grossly defamatory without an iota of truth’, Gadkari contended that the content is designed to mislead the masses that he has misused his public office for private gains, and has caused irreparable harm to his reputation and personality rights.

 

Interestingly, Gadkari clarified how his suit is not intended to muzzle fair public debate or bonafide comments, and declared that there is no bar on fair and good-faith criticism anchored on true facts and made without malice, which were not the subject of this action.

 

Gadkari’s Grouse
Among other things, MoRTH Nitin Gadkari has sought permanent and mandatory injunctions to the “defamatory content and deep fake content”, including all social media posts, tweets, reels, videos and other material that allegedly target him with profane and abusive language, falsely attribute statements to him, and deploy AI‑manipulated audio‑visuals simulating his name, image, likeness, facial features and voice without consent.
 
He asserted that all these reckless and defamatory campaigns, crossing the limits of lawful speech, has caused “grave and irreparable” injury to his reputation, goodwill, dignity and public image, besides infringing his personality and publicity rights.

Comments

bottom of page