JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are:

A. Factual background

B. Submissions

C. A Proportionality Analysis

C.1 Legitimacy

C.2 Suitability

C.3 The necessity of the measure

C.4 Balancing fundamental rights with State aims

C.4.1 Regulatory Role of the RBI

D. Conclusion

A. Factual background

1. The appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 8 October 2020 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Bench at Indore. The High Court upheld Clause 2(iii) of the Revised Guidelines on Merchanting Trade Transactions, ¹[“MTT”] dated 23 January 2020, ²[“2020 MTT Guidelines” - RBI/2019-20/152: A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 20] issued by the first respondent, Reserve Bank of India, ³[“RBI”], in the exercise of its power under Section 10(4) and 11(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999, ⁴[“FEMA”].

2. The appellant is the managing director of a firm that manufactures and trades in pharmaceuticals; herbal and skincare products; and personnel protection equipment products such as masks, gloves, sanitisers, PPE overalls, and ventilators, ⁵[Collectively, they are being referred to as “PPE products”]. The ge