Content
India's economic liberalisation in the early 1990s marked a major shift in the country's regulatory and fiscal frameworks. Among the significant reforms was the transition from the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) to the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). While both legislations dealt with foreign exchange, their approach, philosophy, and impact were strikingly different. This blog explores the nuanced differences between FERA and FEMA, providing an in-depth comparative analysis for policy professionals, finance experts, and compliance specialists.
The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) and the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) are two essential laws in India’s economic history. What is FERA? It was an act introduced in 1973 to regulate foreign exchange during a time of limited reserves. What is FEMA? Enacted in 1999, it replaced FERA to support economic liberalisation. The difference between FEMA and FERA lies in their approach—FERA was more rigid and focused on control, while FEMA is management-oriented and business-friendly.
The primary difference between FEMA and FERA is mainly about the shift from strict regulation to easier compliance. The meaning of FERA and FEMA highlights this transition in India’s economic policy. If you're exploring FEMA and FERA for academic or professional reasons, understanding the FEMA FERA laws is essential to grasp India’s journey in foreign exchange governance.
Unlock the full article - sign in with Gmail!
Expand Your Market Knowledge with 5paisa Articles
What is FERA?
The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973, was a stringent legislation implemented to regulate foreign exchange and to conserve India's foreign exchange reserves. FERA came into force during a time when India faced a serious balance of payments crisis, and every bit of foreign currency was critical. The Act was enacted against the backdrop of a socialist economic model where foreign exchange was treated as a scarce resource.
FERA was a criminal law, meaning violations were treated as criminal offences, and those found guilty could face imprisonment. It granted sweeping powers to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), allowing for arrests, searches, seizures, and prosecutions without many checks and balances. FERA controlled not just transactions involving foreign exchange but also foreign ownership of assets and companies in India.
What is FEMA?
The Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999, replaced the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) in the post-liberalisation era. Enacted in 1999 and effective from June 1, 2000, FEMA aligned India with global financial markets and WTO norms. Unlike FERA, FEMA is a civil law where offences are compoundable and treated as civil violations rather than criminal offences.
FEMA's primary objective is to facilitate external trade and payments and to promote the orderly development and maintenance of the foreign exchange market in India. It is less regulatory and more management-oriented, focusing on administrative control and compliance through authorised dealers, banks, and financial institutions. The shift from FERA to FEMA marked a critical transformation in India's economic legislation framework.
FERA vs FEMA
Here is a detailed comparison of the two legislations on multiple parameters:
| Criteria |
FERA |
FEMA |
| Year of Enactment |
1973 |
1999 |
| Nature of Law |
Criminal law |
Civil law |
| Objective |
Strict regulation and conservation of foreign exchange |
Facilitation of foreign trade and liberalised forex management |
| Scope of Application |
Indian citizens and foreign companies operating in India |
Primarily Indian residents and entities engaging in forex transactions |
| Presumption of Guilt |
Guilty until proven innocent |
Innocent until proven guilty |
| Enforcement Body |
Enforcement Directorate |
Enforcement Directorate (but with limited powers under FEMA) |
| Penalties |
Imprisonment and fines |
Monetary penalties, with a provision for compounding |
| Flexibility |
Rigid and comprehensive controls |
Flexible and market-aligned framework |
| Appeal Mechanism |
Complicated and stringent |
Clear appellate framework through the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (ATFE) |
FERA imposed restrictions even on trivial foreign exchange transactions and required prior approval for most outward remittances. In contrast, FEMA provides specific classifications for current and capital account transactions and introduces automatic routes for many capital flows, subject to particular sectoral caps.
FERA vs FEMA: Which Is More Important?
Determining the importance of FERA and FEMA requires contextual understanding. FERA was indispensable in an era when India had negligible foreign exchange reserves and a closed economy. It protected the country's economic interests during critical periods and discouraged unregulated forex dealings.
However, FEMA is more relevant in the current globalised context. It reflects the principles of economic liberalisation and global integration. FEMA has facilitated ease of doing business, promoted FDI inflows, streamlined capital account transactions, and encouraged international trade.
From a modern regulatory and economic perspective, FEMA is significantly more aligned with contemporary needs. It supports India’s ambition of becoming a $5 trillion economy by reducing regulatory burdens and fostering a business-friendly environment.
Conclusion
The transition from FERA to FEMA is a clear reflection of India’s economic evolution. While FERA served its purpose during a conservative economic period, FEMA has rightly taken over to support a liberalised, growth-oriented economy. Understanding the nuanced difference between FEMA and FERA is crucial for financial analysts, policymakers, corporate advisors, and legal practitioners involved in cross-border transactions and compliance.
As global capital becomes increasingly mobile, the relevance of a flexible and pragmatic foreign exchange law becomes ever more critical. FEMA, with its civil nature and emphasis on facilitation rather than restriction, stands as a testament to India’s shift towards economic openness.
