Advocate Anjan Datta moves SC against Centre’s 0.4% MDR on UPI payments over ₹2,000

Advocate Anjan Datta has moved the Supreme Court in a public interest litigation challenging the Centre’s decision to levy a 0.4% merchant discount rate (MDR) on Unified Payments Interface (UPI) person-to-merchant transactions above ₹2,000.

The petition specifically contests the government’s September 14 notification and the MDR framework announced on September 15, saying the charge was imposed without adequate statutory safeguards, transparency or public consultation (per thehindu.com).

The policy, as set out in the government notices, exempts UPI payments up to ₹2,000 from any MDR but makes transactions above that threshold subject to the 0.4% fee, and is stated to take effect from October 15 (per thehindu.com).

The petitioner argues that introducing a broad levy on everyday digital merchant payments requires parliamentary oversight or clearer rule-making authority and that stakeholders were not sufficiently consulted before the notification and framework were issued (per thehindu.com).

The government framed the change as a structural fee on person-to-merchant flows above a set threshold, but the PIL frames it as a procedurally flawed executive action that could raise costs for small merchants and consumers; the source documents the petition and the government’s published notification without including a government legal justification beyond the notices themselves (per thehindu.com).

With implementation slated from October 15, the case could force the court to evaluate whether the executive followed required procedures and statutory limits when altering fees on a widely used payments rail; the source does not report any interim orders from the court or a government response to the PIL at this stage (per thehindu.com).

• Only thehindu.com is present; it frames the story as a procedural challenge to the Centre’s notification and MDR framework without providing the government’s fuller justification beyond published notices (per thehindu.com).

• No other outlet in this pack disputes or corroborates the petitioner’s claim that consultation was inadequate; the single source records the allegation but not a government rebuttal (per thehindu.com).

• No source mentions detailed estimates of how many consumers or merchants will be affected or the aggregate revenue the 0.4% MDR would generate.
• No source in this pack cites the statutory provision the Centre relied on to issue the September 14 notification or the legal basis for imposing the MDR.
• No source reports whether payments platforms, banks, or merchant groups were formally consulted or what their positions are.

• Only thehindu.com provides the figures: 0.4% MDR, ₹2,000 threshold, and October 15 implementation (per thehindu.com).

• Thehindu.com reports the petitioner’s claim that the levy was introduced without adequate statutory safeguards or consultation and links that procedural claim to the filing of the PIL; no source names a prior action that triggered the government’s notification beyond the notification itself (per thehindu.com).

• The allegation that the levy lacked statutory safeguards, transparency or public consultation is attributed to petitioner Advocate Anjan Datta (per thehindu.com).