The Reserve bank of India issues circulars form time to time. These circulars have the force of law and unless specifically mentioned  have a binding affect.

We share some important circulars here.

RBI guidelines have statutory force

Such Circulars of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) have in, ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 1 and in Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Limited v. Reserve Bank of India (1992) 2 SCC 343 been held to have a statutory character and force of law.

Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 645] for the proposition that when two views are possible, the view of the regulating body, such as the RBI, should be accepted by the Court in matters falling within the domain of the RBI.

Joseph Kuruvilla Vellukunnel v. Reserve Bank of India[1962 Supp (3) SCR 632] in which the functions of the RBI including the functions relating to operation of the credit system of the country to its advantage have been discussed.

Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Ltd. and Another v. Reserve Bank of India and others[(1992) 2 SCC 343] in which the Apex Court has held that the RBI has a large contingent of expert advice relating to matters affecting the economy of the country and nobody can doubt the bonafides of the RBI in issuing directions to the banks and it is not the function of the courts to sit in judgment over matters of economic policy and it must necessarily be left to the expert bodies. It has been held that Courts are not to interfere with economic policy which is the function of the expert bodies and submitted that the view taken by the RBI that dues under derivative transactions covered by the Master Circular should not be disturbed by the Courts.

ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Ltd. and others in which the Supreme Court Court has discussed the power of the RBI under the 1934 Act to regulate the business of banking companies and to control their management in certain situations. In the aforesaid decision, reference has also been made to the permission of the RBI required if a banking company seeks to deal in derivative.

Desh Bandhu Gupta and Co. and others v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. [(1979) 4 SCC 565] in which the principle of contemporanea expositio applied to interpretation of statutes or any other document has been discussed.

Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India and Another [(2010) 11 SCC 528] the Supreme Court has held that it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or not and submitted that these comments were made by the Court while dealing with the issue of reduction of non- performing assets in the books of banks.