document_title: Joint Session of Indian Parliament

question_text: who summon the joint session of parliament in india

text: Joint Session of Indian Parliament

text: Provisions of Constitution[edit]

text: As per Article 108 of Constitution, a Joint session of Parliament can be summoned in the following situations.[1]

text: If after a Bill has been passed by one House and submitted to the other House—

text: (a) the Bill is rejected by the other House; or (b) the Houses have finally disagreed as to the amendments to be made in the Bill; or (c) more than six months elapse from the date of the reception of the Bill by the other House without the Bill being passed by it, the President may, unless the Bill has elapsed by reason of a dissolution of the House of the People, notify to the Houses by message if they are sitting or by public notification if they are not sitting, his intention to summon them to meet in a joint sitting for the purpose of deliberating and voting on the Bill

text: However, in calculating period of six months, those days are not considered when house is prorogued or adjourned for more than 4 consecutive days.

text: If the above conditions are satisfied, the President of India may summon joint sitting of both the houses of parliament.

text: Exception to joint sittings[edit]

text: Not all bills can be refereed to a joint sitting of Parliament. There are two exception.

text: 1. Money Bill

text: Under the Constitution of India, money bills require approval of the Lok Sabha only. Rajya Sabha can make recommendations to Lok Sabha, which it is not required to accept. Even if Rajya Sabha doesn't pass a money bill within 14 days, it is deemed to have been passed by both the Houses of Parliament after expiry of the above period. Therefore, a requirement to summon a joint session can never arise in the case of money bill.

text: 2. Constitution Amendment Bill

text: Article 368 of Indian constitution require that constitution of India can be amended by both houses of parliament by 2/3 majority. In case of disagreement between both houses, there is no provision to summon a joint session of parliament.

text: Bills referred to joint session[edit]

text: Joint session of Indian parliament has been called for only three bills i.e. dowry prohibition act, 1960, banking service commission act, 1977 and POTA, 2002. As per a senior member of NDA government they are considering for a joint session on Triple Talaq Bill (2018).

text: BILLS PASSED IN JOINT SESSION: 1. Dowry Prohibition Bill , 1961 2. Banking Service Commission ( Repeal) Bill , 1978 3. Prevention of Terrorism Bill, 2002


document_title: Separation of church and state in the United States

question_text: who is noted for advocating separation of church and state

question_tokens: who is noted for advocating separation of church and state

root

text: Separation of church and state in the United States

text: Early history[edit]

text:
Many early immigrant groups traveled to America to worship freely, particularly after the English Civil War and religious conflict in France and Germany.[10] They included nonconformists like the Puritans, who were Protestant Christians fleeing religious persecution from the Anglican King of England. Despite a common background, the groups' views on religious toleration were mixed.  While some such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island and William Penn of Pennsylvania ensured the protection of religious minorities within their colonies, others like the Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony had established churches. The Dutch colony of New Netherland established the Dutch Reformed Church and outlawed all other worship, though enforcement was sparse. Religious conformity was desired partly for financial reasons: the established Church was responsible for poor relief, putting dissenting churches at a significant disadvantage.
<---This, along with many other statements should be footnoted, as it seems more like an opinion than a fact.--->

tag: p

text: Former state churches in British North America[edit]

text: Catholic colonies[edit]

text:
When New France was transferred to Great Britain in 1763, the Catholic Church remained under toleration, but Huguenots were allowed entrance where they had formerly been banned from settlement by French authorities.
The Colony of Maryland was founded by a charter granted in 1632 to George Calvert, secretary of state to Charles I, and his son Cecil, both recent converts to Catholicism. Under their leadership many English Catholic gentry families settled in Maryland. However, the colonial government was officially neutral in religious affairs, granting toleration to all Christian groups and enjoining them to avoid actions which antagonized the others. On several occasions "low-church" dissenters led insurrections which temporarily overthrew the Calvert rule. In 1689, when William and Mary came to the English throne, they acceded to demands to revoke the original royal charter. In 1701 the Church of England was "established" in Maryland, and in the course of the eighteenth century Maryland Catholics were first barred from public office, and then disenfranchised. Not all of the laws passed against Catholic (notably laws restricting property rights and imposing penalties for sending children to be educated in foreign Catholic institutions) were enforced, and some Catholics even continued to hold public office.
Spanish Florida was ceded to Great Britain in 1763. The British divided Florida into two colonies. Both East and West Florida had a policy of toleration for Catholic residents.

tag: ul

text: Protestant colonies[edit]

text:
Plymouth Colony was founded by Pilgrims, English Dissenters or Separatists, Calvinists.
Massachusetts Bay Colony, New Haven Colony, and the New Hampshire were founded by Puritan, Calvinist, Protestants.
New Netherland was founded by Dutch Reformed Calvinists.
The colonies of New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were officially Church of England.

text: Colonies with no established church[edit]

text:
The Province of Pennsylvania was founded by Quakers, but the colony never had an established church.
West Jersey, also founded by Quakers, prohibited any establishment.
Delaware Colony.
The Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, founded by religious dissenters, is widely regarded as the first polity to grant religious freedom to all its citizens.

text: Tabular summary[edit]

text:
Colony
Denomination
Disestablished1

Connecticut
Congregational
1818

Georgia
Church of England
17892

Maryland
Catholic/Church of England
1701/1776

Massachusetts
Congregational
1780 (in 1833 state funding suspended)3

New Brunswick
Church of England

New Hampshire
Congregational
17904

Newfoundland
Church of England

North Carolina
Church of England
17765

Nova Scotia
Church of England
1850

Prince Edward Island
Church of England

South Carolina
Church of England
1790

Canada West
Church of England
1854

West Florida
Church of England
N/A6,7

East Florida
Church of England
N/A6,7

Virginia
Church of England
17868

West Indies
Church of England
1868

tag: table

text:
^Note 1:
In several colonies, the establishment ceased to exist in practice at the Revolution, about 1776;[11] this is the date of permanent legal abolition.

text:
^Note 2:
in 1789 the Georgia Constitution was amended as follows:
"Article IV. Section 10. No person within this state shall, upon any pretense, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping God in any manner agreeable to his own conscience, nor be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall he ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rate, for the building or repairing any place of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or hath voluntarily engaged to do. No one religious society shall ever be established in this state, in preference to another; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles."

text:
^Note 3:
From 1780 Massachusetts had a system which required every man to belong to a church, and permitted each church to tax its members, but forbade any law requiring that it be of any particular denomination. This was objected to, as in practice establishing the Congregational Church, the majority denomination, and was abolished in 1833.

text:
^Note 4:
Until 1877 the New Hampshire Constitution required members of the State legislature to be of the Protestant religion.

text:
^Note 5:
The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 disestablished the Anglican church, but until 1835 the NC Constitution allowed only Protestants to hold public office. From 1835 to 1876 it allowed only Christians (including Catholics) to hold public office. Article VI, Section 8 of the current NC Constitution forbids only atheists from holding public office.[12] Such clauses were held by the United States Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, when the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with First and Fourteenth Amendment protections.

text:
^Note 6:
Religious tolerance for Catholics with an established Church of England was policy in the former Spanish Colonies of East and West Florida while under British rule.

text:
^Note 7:
In Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the American Revolutionary War, the British ceded both East and West Florida back to Spain (see Spanish Florida).

text:
^Note 8:
Tithes for the support of the Anglican Church in Virginia were suspended in 1776, and never restored. 1786 is the date of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, which prohibited any coercion to support any religious body.

text: Colonial support for separation[edit]

text: The Flushing Remonstrance shows support for separation of church and state as early as the mid-17th century, stating their opposition to religious persecution of any sort: "The law of love, peace and liberty in the states extending to Jews, Turks and Egyptians, as they are considered sons of Adam, which is the glory of the outward state of Holland, so love, peace and liberty, extending to all in Christ Jesus, condemns hatred, war and bondage."  The document was signed December 27, 1657 by a group of English citizens in America who were affronted by persecution of Quakers and the religious policies of the Governor of New Netherland, Peter Stuyvesant.  Stuyvesant had formally banned all religions other than the Dutch Reformed Church from being practiced in the colony, in accordance with the laws of the Dutch Republic. The signers indicated their "desire therefore in this case not to judge lest we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned, but rather let every man stand or fall to his own Master."[13] Stuyvesant fined the petitioners and threw them in prison until they recanted.  However, John Bowne allowed the Quakers to meet in his home.  Bowne was arrested, jailed, and sent to the Netherlands for trial; the Dutch court exonerated Bowne.

text: New York Historical Society President and Columbia University Professor of History Kenneth T. Jackson describes the Flushing Remonstrance as "the first thing that we have in writing in the United States where a group of citizens attests on paper and over their signature the right of the people to follow their own conscience with regard to God - and the inability of government, or the illegality of government, to interfere with that."[14]

text: Given the wide diversity of opinion on Christian theological matters in the newly independent American States, the Constitutional Convention believed a government sanctioned (established) religion would disrupt rather than bind the newly formed union together. George Washington wrote a letter in 1790 to the country's first Jewish congregation, the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island to state:

text: Allowing rights and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it were by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.[15]

text: There were also opponents to the support of any established church even at the state level.  In 1773, Isaac Backus, a prominent Baptist minister in New England, wrote against a state sanctioned religion, saying: "Now who can hear Christ declare, that his kingdom is, not of this world, and yet believe that this blending of church and state together can be pleasing to him?"  He also observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."  Thomas Jefferson's influential Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was enacted in 1786, five years before the Bill of Rights.

text: Most Anglican ministers, and many Anglicans, were Loyalists. The Anglican establishment, where it had existed, largely ceased to function during the American Revolution, though the new States did not formally abolish and replace it until some years after the Revolution.

text: Jefferson, Madison, and the "wall of separation"[edit]

text: The phrase "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island, in his 1644 book  The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[16][17]  The phrase was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter[18] to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):

text: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

text: Jefferson's letter was in reply to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association dated October 7, 1801.[19] In an 1808 letter to Virginia Baptists, Jefferson used the same theme:

text: We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.

text: Jefferson and James Madison's conceptions of separation have long been debated.  Jefferson refused to issue Proclamations of Thanksgiving sent to him by Congress during his presidency, though he did issue a Thanksgiving and Prayer proclamation as Governor of Virginia.[20][21] Madison issued four religious proclamations while President,[22] but vetoed two bills on the grounds they violated the first amendment.[23] On the other hand, both Jefferson and Madison attended religious services at the Capitol.[24] Years before the ratification of the Constitution, Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body."[25] After retiring from the presidency, Madison wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[26] " "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote,[27] and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."[28] In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."[29] Madison's original draft of the Bill of Rights had included provisions binding the States, as well as the Federal Government, from an establishment of religion, but the House did not pass them.[citation needed]

text: Jefferson's opponents said his position was the destruction and the governmental rejection of Christianity, but this was a caricature.[30] In setting up the University of Virginia, Jefferson encouraged all the separate sects to have preachers of their own, though there was a constitutional ban on the State supporting a Professorship of Divinity, arising from his own Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.[31] Some have argued that this arrangement was "fully compatible with Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state;"[32] however, others point to Jefferson's support for a scheme in which students at the university would attend religious worship each morning as evidence that his views were not consistent with strict separation.[33] Still other scholars, such as Mark David Hall, attempt to sidestep the whole issue by arguing that American jurisprudence focuses too narrowly on this one Jeffersonian letter while failing to account for other relevant history[34]

text:
Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's "Letter to the Danbury Baptists" to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."[35]
Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.

text: Patrick Henry, Massachusetts, and Connecticut[edit]

text: Jefferson and Madison's approach was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship" (Article II), but also that:

text: the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

text: And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend. (Article III)

text: Since, in practice, this meant that the decision of who was taxable for a particular religion rested in the hands of the selectmen, usually Congregationalists, this system was open to abuse. It was abolished in 1833.  The intervening period is sometimes referred to as an "establishment of religion" in Massachusetts.

text: The Duke of York had required that every community in his new lands of New York and New Jersey support some church, but this was more often Dutch Reformed, Quaker, or Presbyterian, than Anglican.  Some chose to support more than one church. He also ordained that the tax-payers were free, having paid his local tax, to choose their own church. The terms for the surrender of New Amsterdam had provided that the Dutch would have liberty of conscience, and the Duke, as an openly divine-right Catholic, was no friend of Anglicanism. The first Anglican minister in New Jersey arrived in 1698, though Anglicanism was more popular in New York.[36]

text: Connecticut had a real establishment of religion. Its citizens did not adopt a constitution at the Revolution, but rather amended their Charter to remove all references to the British Government. As a result, the Congregational Church continued to be established, and Yale College, at that time a Congregational institution, received grants from the State until Connecticut adopted a constitution in 1818 partly because of this issue.

text: Test acts[edit]

text: The absence of an establishment of religion did not necessarily imply that all men were free to hold office. Most colonies had a Test Act, and several states retained them for a short time.  This stood in contrast to the Federal Constitution, which explicitly prohibits the employment of any religious test for Federal office, and which through the Fourteenth Amendment later extended this prohibition to the States.

text: For example, the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 provides liberty of conscience in much the same language as Massachusetts (similarly forbidding payment of "taxes, tithes or other payments" contrary to conscience). It then provides:

text: That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.[37]

text: This would permit a Test Act, but did not require one.

text: The original charter of the Province of East Jersey had restricted membership in the Assembly to Christians; the Duke of York was fervently Catholic, and the proprietors of Perth Amboy, New Jersey were Scottish Catholic peers. The Province of West Jersey had declared, in 1681, that there should be no religious test for office.  An oath had also been imposed on the militia during the French and Indian War requiring them to abjure the pretensions of the Pope, which may or may not have been applied during the Revolution.  That law was replaced by 1799.

text: The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 provided:

text: And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

text: I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

text: And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

text: Again, it provided in general that all tax-paying freemen and their sons shall be able to vote, and that no "man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship."

text: The U.S. Constitution[edit]

text: Article 6[edit]

text: Article Six of the United States Constitution provides that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".  Prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, this was the only mention of religion in the Constitution.

text: The First Amendment[edit]

text: The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.[38] Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.[39]

text: The First Congress' deliberations show that its understanding of the separation of church and state differed sharply from that of their contemporaries in Europe.[citation needed] As 19th century Union Theological Seminary historian Philip Schaff observed:

text: The American separation of church and state rests upon respect for the church; the [European anticlerical] separation, on indifference and hatred of the church, and of religion itself... The constitution did not create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them already existing, and was framed for the purpose of protecting them under a republican form of government, in a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people.[40]

text: An August 15, 1789 entry in Madison's papers indicates he intended for the establishment clause to prevent the government imposition of religious beliefs on individuals. The entry says: "Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. ..."[41]

text: Some legal scholars, such as John Baker of LSU, theorize that Madison's initial proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a "national religion"—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general "religion" in an effort to appease the Anti-Federalists. To both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, the very word "national" was a cause for alarm because of the experience under the British crown.[42] During the debate over the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison's language regarding whether the government was a national government, or a federal government]] (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty), which Baker suggests compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.

text: Following the argument between Madison and Gerry, Rep. Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire proposed language stating that, "Congress shall make no laws touching religion or the rights of conscience." This raised an uproar from members, such as Rep. Benjamin Huntingdon of Connecticut and Rep. Peter Sylvester of New York, who worried the language could be used to harm religious practice.

text:
Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which did not include establishing a national religion.
Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions. However, the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop the clause from the first amendment.

text: The Senate went through several more narrowly targeted versions before reaching the contemporary language. One version read, "Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others, nor shall freedom of conscience be infringed," while another read, "Congress shall make no law establishing one particular religious denomination in preference to others." Ultimately, the Senate rejected the more narrowly targeted language.

text: At the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, many states acted in ways that would now be held unconstitutional. All of the early official state churches were disestablished by 1833 (Massachusetts), including the Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut. It is commonly accepted that, under the doctrine of Incorporation—which uses the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to hold the Bill of Rights applicable to the states—these state churches could not be reestablished today.

text: Yet the provisions of state constitutions protected religious liberty, particularly the so-called freedom of conscience. During the nineteenth century (and before the incorporation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment), litigants turned to these provisions to challenge Sunday laws (blue laws), bible-reading in schools, and other ostensibly religious regulations.[43]

text: The 14th Amendment[edit]

text: The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others. The amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states.

text: The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has affected the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments.[44] Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).

text: The "Separation" principle and the Supreme Court[edit]

text: Jefferson's concept of "separation of church and state" first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878).[45] In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted." The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the "separation" paragraph from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."

text: The centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

text: While the decision (with four dissents) ultimately upheld the state law allowing the funding of transportation of students to religious schools, the majority opinion (by Justice Hugo Black) and the dissenting opinions (by Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge and Justice Robert H. Jackson) each explicitly stated that the Constitution has erected a "wall between church and state" or a "separation of Church from State": their disagreement was limited to whether this case of state funding of transportation to religious schools breached that wall. Rutledge, on behalf of the four dissenting justices, took the position that the majority had indeed permitted a violation of the wall of separation in this case: "Neither so high nor so impregnable today as yesterday is the wall raised between church and state by Virginia's great statute of religious freedom and the First Amendment, now made applicable to all the states by the Fourteenth." Writing separately, Justice Jackson argued that "[T]here are no good grounds upon which to support the present legislation. In fact, the undertones of the opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation of Church from State, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion yielding support to their commingling in educational matters."

text: In 1962, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially sponsored prayer or religious recitations in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court, by a vote of 6-1, determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. (The prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision consisted of: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.") As the Court stated:

text: The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

text: The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."[46] The lone dissenter, Justice Potter Stewart, objected to the court's embrace of the "wall of separation" metaphor: "I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."

text: In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court considered an Arkansas law that made it a crime "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" this theory in any school or university that received public funds. The court's opinion, written by Justice Abe Fortas, ruled that the Arkansas law violated "the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group." The court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and that "[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them." [47]

text:
Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?'
— Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her opinion on the 2005 Ten Commandments ruling.[48]

tag: div

text: In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the court determined that a Pennsylvania state policy of reimbursing the salaries and related costs of teachers of secular subjects in private religious schools violated the Establishment Clause. The court's decision argued that the separation of church and state could never be absolute: "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable," the court wrote. "Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a 'wall', is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."

text: Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion.[49] (The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman hinged upon the conclusion that the government benefits were flowing disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral component of the Catholic Church's religious mission, thus the policy involved the state in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.) Failure to meet any of these criteria is a proof that the statute or policy in question violates the Establishment Clause.

text: In 2002, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in a California public school was unconstitutional, even when students were not compelled to recite it, due to the inclusion of the phrase "under God." In reaction to the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, both houses of Congress passed measures reaffirming their support for the pledge, and condemning the panel's ruling.[50] The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was ultimately overturned in June 2004, solely on procedural grounds not related to the substantive constitutional issue. Rather, a five-justice majority held that Newdow, a non-custodial parent suing on behalf of his daughter, lacked standing to sue.

text:
When the Louisiana state legislature passed a law requiring public school biology teachers to give Creationism and Evolution equal time in the classroom, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was intended to advance a particular religion, and did not serve the secular purpose of improved scientific education.[51]
(See also: Creation and evolution in public education)

text: The display of the Ten Commandments as part of courthouse displays was considered in a group of cases decided in summer of 2005, including McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry. While parties on both sides hoped for a reformulation or clarification of the Lemon test, the two rulings ended with narrow 5–4 and opposing decisions,[vague] with Justice Stephen Breyer the swing vote.

text: On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continued display of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display on American legal traditions in a Kentucky courthouse was allowed, because the purpose of the display (educating the public on American legal traditions) was secular in nature.[52] In ruling on the Mount Soledad cross controversy on May 3, 2006, however, a federal judge ruled that the cross on public property on Mount Soledad must be removed.[53]

text: In what will be the case is Town of Greece v. Galloway, 12-696, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding whether prayers at town meetings, which are allowed, must allow various faiths to lead prayer, or whether the prayers can be predominately Christian.[54] On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Town of Greece by holding that the U.S. Constitution not only allows for prayer at government meetings, but also for sectarian prayers like predominately Christian prayers.[55]

text: The Treaty of Tripoli[edit]

text: In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:

text: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

text: Interpretive controversies[edit]

text: Some scholars and organizations disagree with the notion of "separation of church and state", or the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitutional limitation on religious establishment.[56] Such critics generally argue that the phrase misrepresents the textual requirements of the Constitution, while noting that many aspects of church and state were intermingled at the time the Constitution was ratified. These critics argue that the prevalent degree of separation of church and state could not have been intended by the constitutional framers. Some of the intermingling between church and state include religious references in official contexts, and such other founding documents as the United States Declaration of Independence, which references the idea of a "Creator" and "Nature's God", though these references did not ultimately appear in the Constitution nor do they mention any particular religious view of a "Creator" or "Nature's God."

text: These critics of the modern separation of church and state also note the official establishment of religion in several of the states at the time of ratification, to suggest that the modern incorporation of the Establishment Clause as to state governments goes against the original constitutional intent.[citation needed] The issue is complex, however, as the incorporation ultimately bases on the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, at which point the first amendment's application to the state government was recognized.[57] Many of these constitutional debates relate to the competing interpretive theories of originalism versus modern, progressivist theories such as the doctrine of the Living Constitution. Other debates center on the principle of the law of the land in America being defined not just by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, but also by legal precedence, making an accurate reading of the Constitution subject to the mores and values of a given era, and rendering the concept of historical revisionism irrelevant when discussing the Constitution.

text: The "religious test" clause has been interpreted to cover both elected officials and appointed ones, career civil servants as well as political appointees. Religious beliefs or the lack of them have therefore not been permissible tests or qualifications with regard to federal employees since the ratification of the Constitution. Seven states, however, have language included in their Bill of Rights or Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions that require state office-holders to have particular religious beliefs, though some of these have been successfully challenged in court. These states are Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee.[58]

text: The required beliefs of these clauses include belief in a Supreme Being and belief in a future state of rewards and punishments. (Tennessee Constitution Article IX, Section 2 is one such example.) Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God." In some cases these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required of jurors and witnesses in court. At one time, such restrictions were allowed under the doctrine of states' rights; today they are deemed to be in violation of the federal First Amendment, as applied to the states via the 14th amendment, and hence unconstitutional and unenforceable.

text: While sometimes questioned as possible violations of separation, the appointment of official chaplains for government functions, voluntary prayer meetings at the Department of Justice outside of duty hours, voluntary prayer at meals in U.S. armed forces, inclusion of the (optional) phrase "so help me God" in the oaths for many elected offices, FBI agents, etc., have been held not to violate the First Amendment, since they fall within the realm of free exercise of religion.[citation needed]

text: Relaxed zoning rules and special parking privileges for churches, the tax-free status of church property, the fact that Christmas is a federal holiday, etc., have also been questioned, but have been considered examples of the governmental prerogative in deciding practical and beneficial arrangements for the society. The national motto "In God We Trust" has been challenged as a violation, but the Supreme Court has ruled that ceremonial deism is not religious in nature. A circuit court ruling affirmed Ohio's right to use as its motto a passage from the Bible, "With God, all things are possible", because it displayed no preference for a particular religion.[59]

text: Jeffries and Ryan (2001) argue that the modern concept of separation of church and state dates from the mid-twentieth century rulings of the Supreme Court. The central point, they argue, was a constitutional ban against aid to religious schools, followed by a later ban on religious observance in public education. Jeffries and Ryan argue that these two propositions—that public aid should not go to religious schools and that public schools should not be religious—make up the separationist position of the modern Establishment Clause.

text: Jeffries and Ryan argue that no-aid position drew support from a coalition of separationist opinion. Most important was "the pervasive secularism that came to dominate American public life," which sought to confine religion to a private sphere. Further, the ban against government aid to religious schools was supported before 1970 by most Protestants (and most Jews), who opposed aid to religious schools, which were mostly Catholic at the time. After 1980, however, anti-Catholic sentiment has diminished among mainline Protestants, and the crucial coalition of public secularists and Protestant churches has collapsed. While mainline Protestant denominations are more inclined towards strict separation of church and state, much evangelical opinion has now largely deserted that position. As a consequence, strict separationism is opposed today by members of many Protestant faiths, even perhaps eclipsing the opposition of Roman Catholics.[citation needed]

text: Critics of the modern concept of the "separation of church and state" argue that it is untethered to anything in the text of the constitution and is contrary to the conception of the phrase as the Founding Fathers understood it. Philip Hamburger, Columbia Law school professor and prominent critic of the modern understanding of the concept, maintains that the modern concept, which deviates from the constitutional establishment clause jurisprudence, is rooted in American anti-Catholicism and Nativism.[citation needed] Briefs before the Supreme Court, including by the U.S. government, have argued that some state constitutional amendments relating to the modern conception of separation of church and state (Blaine Amendments) were motivated by and intended to enact anti-Catholicism.[60]

text: J. Brent Walker, Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee, responded to Hamburger's claims noting; "The fact that the separation of church and state has been supported by some who exhibited an anti-Catholic animus or a secularist bent does not impugn the validity of the principle. Champions of religious liberty have argued for the separation of church and state for reasons having nothing to do with anti-Catholicism or desire for a secular culture. Of course, separationists have opposed the Catholic Church when it has sought to tap into the public till to support its parochial schools or to argue for on-campus released time in the public schools. But that principled debate on the issues does not support a charge of religious bigotry"[61]

text:
Steven Waldman notes that; "The evangelicals provided the political muscle for the efforts of Madison and Jefferson, not merely because they wanted to block official churches but because they wanted to keep the spiritual and secular worlds apart." Frank Lambert wrote
"Religious freedom resulted from an alliance of unlikely partners. New Light evangelicals such as Isaac Bachus and John Leland joined forces with Deists and skeptics such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to fight for a complete separation of church and state."[62][63]

text: Politics and religion in the United States[edit]

text: Robert N. Bellah has written that although the separation of church and state is grounded firmly in the constitution of the United States, this does not mean that there is no religious dimension in the political society of the United States. He used the term "Civil Religion" to describe the specific relation between politics and religion in the United States. His 1967 article analyzes the inaugural speech of John F. Kennedy: "Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension."[64]

text: Robert S. Wood has argued that the United States is a model for the world in terms of how a separation of church and state—no state-run or state-established church—is good for both the church and the state, allowing a variety of religions to flourish.[65] Speaking at the Toronto-based Center for New Religions, Wood said that the freedom of conscience and assembly allowed under such a system has led to a "remarkable religiosity" in the United States that isn't present in other industrialized nations.[65] Wood believes that the U.S. operates on "a sort of civic religion," which includes a generally shared belief in a creator who "expects better of us." Beyond that, individuals are free to decide how they want to believe and fill in their own creeds and express their conscience. He calls this approach the "genius of religious sentiment in the United States."[65]


document_title: NASSCOM

question_text: who has been appointed as the new president of nasscom

text: NASSCOM

text: Events[edit]

text: NASSCOM organises the Indian Leadership Forum. It gives a platform to the developing companies to network and present their product. Notable events include:

text:
NASSCOM Product Conclave
Engineering Summits
NASSCOM Emerge 50
Global In-house Centers Summit.
Big Data Analytics Summit.
Diversity & Inclusion Summit.
HR Summit

text: Awards[edit]

text: NASSCOM Emerge 50[3] is an annual Indian awards ceremony honoring the most promising and innovative startups in software and technology domains. The awards, first presented in 2009, are overseen by NASSCOM.[4]

text: The winners are chosen after a yearlong scrutiny process by a panel of eminent jury. Every year the top 10 startups are given the collective title of The League of 10.

text: Membership[edit]

text: Members of NASSCOM are Indian Co software development, software services, IT-enabled/BPO services. NASSCOM role has primarily been to make sure that service quality and enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights have been properly implemented in the Indian software and BPO industry. As of June 2007, more than 1,110 information technology companies in India were members of NASSCOM, which included domestic software/ITES companies along with multinationals operating within India. NASSCOM has a Mentorship Programme for the mid-sized companies. This is a six-month engagement, which will help the organisation to develop a better assessment of their strengths and weaknesses.

text:
Insights on industry trends

Access to NASSCOM research and intelligence that tracks industry trends, growth opportunities and best practices.
Access to industry presentations, blogs, discussions and articles.
An opportunity to engage with the NASSCOM research team and share case studies or transformational stories.

Opportunities to enhance visibility

Visibility through features and interviews on the NASSCOM website, as well as the monthly newsletter, NASSCOM Newsline.
Speak, sponsor or participant opportunities at NASSCOM events.
Chance to contribute to blogs and newsletters as thought leaders.
Brand building through NASSCOM awards and recognitions.

Opportunity to network, build and share best practices

Chance to use the member database on NASSCOM's website to post a trade lead, or participate in one.
Chance to share or learn best practices through city-level networking sessions on human capital development, data security, contract management, quality, diversity and more.

Global trade development

Members can participate in opportunities for global networking and build business at NASSCOM's global events, and through delegations and road shows.
Network with companies in other countries through their delegations to India.
Receive information regularly about policy updates in countries.
Understand issues related to visas, immigration through NASSCOM's mobility best practices sessions.
Learn about trends and opportunities in markets through country reports.

text: Prominent people[edit]

text: Employees and members of executive council of NASSCOM include:[5]

text:
Rishad Premji – Chairman of NASSCOM, 2018–2019[5]
Raman Roy - Chairman of NASSCOM, 2017–2018
C. P. Gurnani – Chairman of NASSCOM, 2016–2017
B V R Mohan Reddy – Chairman of NASSCOM, 2015–2016
Debjani Ghosh - President of NASSCOM, 2018–present[6]
R Chandrasekhar – President of NASSCOM for 2013 – 2018 [7]
Somdutta Singh – Co-Chair of NASSCOM Product Council[8]


document_title: Indian rupee

question_text: when was first currency note printed in india

text: Indian rupee

text: Etymology[edit]

text: The word "rupee" was derived from the Sanskrit word रूप्यकम् (rūpyakam) or rupaya (meaning "wrought silver, a coin of silver").[citation needed] [11] Arthashastra, written by Chanakya, prime minister to the first Maurya emperor Chandragupta Maurya (c 340–290 BCE), mentions silver coins as rūpyarupa, other types of coins including gold coins (Suvarṇarūpa), copper coins (Tāmrarūpa) and lead coins (Sīsarūpa) are also mentioned. Rūpa means to form or shape, example, Rūpyarūpa, rūpya — wrought silver, rūpa — form.[12]

text: However, in the region of Bengal, the term taka has always been used to refer to currency.[13] In the 14th century, Ibn Battuta noticed that people in the Bengal Sultanate referred to gold and silver coins as taka instead of the dinar. Today, the currency of Bangladesh is officially known as taka. The word taka in Bengali is also commonly used generically to mean any money, currency, or notes. Thus, colloquially, a person speaking in Bengali may use "taka" to refer to money regardless of what currency it is denominated in. Thus, in the states of West Bengal and Tripura the Indian rupee is officially known টাকা (ṭaka). Whereas, in the states of Assam and Odisha, the Indian rupee is similarly known by names derived from the Sanskrit word ṭaṅka (meaning "money"),[14] টকা (ṭôka) in Assamese and ଟଙ୍କା (taṅkā) in Odia.

text: Large values of rupees are counted in terms of thousands, lakh (100 thousand),10 lakhs (1 million) and crore (10 million), 100 crores (1 billion), 1 Arab (10 billion) or 1000 crores(1 Arab).

text: History[edit]

text: The history of the Indian rupee traces back to Ancient India in circa 6th century BCE, ancient India was one of the earliest issuers of coins in the world,[15] along with the Chinese wen and Lydian staters.

text: During his five-year rule from 1540 to 1545, Sultan Sher Shah Suri issued a coin of silver, weighing 178 grains (or 11.53 grams), which was termed the Rupiya.[16][17] During Babar's time, the brass to silver exchange ratio was roughly 50:2.[18] The silver coin remained in use during the Mughal period, Maratha era as well as in British India.[19] Among the earliest issues of paper rupees include; the Bank of Hindustan (1770–1832), the General Bank of Bengal and Bihar (1773–75, established by Warren Hastings), and the Bengal Bank (1784–91).

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text:
[show]INDIAN SILVER RUPEE VALUE 1850-1900[20]

year
exchange rate
melt value

(pence per Rupee)
(pence per Rupee)

1850
24.3
22.7

1851
24.1
22.7

1852
23.9
22.5

1853
24.1
22.8

1854
23.1
22.8

1855
24.2
22.8

1856
24.2
22.8

1857
24.6
22.9

1858
25.7
22.8

1859
26.0
23.0

1860
26.0
22.9

1861
23.9
22.6

1862
23.9
22.8

1863
23.9
22.8

1864
23.9
22.8

1865
23.8
22.7

1866
23.1
22.7

1867
23.2
22.5

1868
23.2
22.5

1869
23.3
22.5

1870
22.5
22.5

1871
23.1
22.5

1872
22.7
22.4

1873
22.3
22.0

1874
22.1
21.6

1875
21.6
21.1

1876
20.5
19.6

1877
20.8
20.4

1878
19.8
19.5

1879
20.0
19.0

1880
19.9
19.4

1881
19.9
19.2

1882
19.5
19.3

1883
19.5
18.7

1884
19.3
18.8

1885
18.2
18.0

1886
17.4
16.8

1887
16.9
16.6

1888
16.4
15.9

1889
16.5
15.8

1890
18.0
17.7

1891
16.7
16.7

1892
15.0
14.8

1893
14.5
13.2

1894
13.1
10.7

1895
13.6
11.1

1896
14.4
11.5

1897
15.3
10.2

1898
16.0
10.0

1899
16.0
10.2

1900
16.0
10.4

text: Historically, the rupee was a silver coin. This had severe consequences in the nineteenth century when the strongest economies in the world were on the gold standard. The discovery of large quantities of silver in the United States and several European colonies resulted in a decline in the value of silver relative to gold, devaluing India's standard currency. This event was known as "the fall of the rupee."

text: India was unaffected by the imperial order-in-council of 1825, which attempted to introduce British sterling coinage to the British colonies. British India, at that time, was controlled by the British East India Company. The silver rupee continued as the currency of India through the British Raj and beyond. In 1835, British India adopted a mono-metallic silver standard based on the rupee; this decision was influenced by a letter written by Lord Liverpool in 1805 extolling the virtues of mono-metallism.

text: Following the Indian Mutiny in 1857, the British government took direct control of British India. Since 1851, gold sovereigns were produced en masse at the Royal Mint in Sydney, New South Wales. In an 1864 attempt to make the British gold sovereign the "imperial coin", the treasuries in Bombay and Calcutta were instructed to receive gold sovereigns; however, these gold sovereigns never left the vaults. As the British government gave up hope of replacing the rupee in India with the pound sterling, it realised for the same reason it could not replace the silver dollar in the Straits Settlements with the Indian rupee (as the British East India Company had desired). Since the silver crisis of 1873, a number of nations adopted the gold standard; however, India remained on the silver standard until it was replaced by a basket of commodities and currencies in the late 20th century.[citation needed]

text: India Council Bill[edit]

text: Around 1875, Britain started paying India for exported goods in India Council Bills (instead of silver).

text: Problems caused by the gold standard[edit]

text: At the onset of the First World War, the cost of gold was very low and therefore the pound sterling had high value. But during the First World War, the value of the pound fell alarmingly due to rising war expenses. At the conclusion of the war, the value of the pound was only a fraction of what it used to be prior to the commencement of the war. It remained low until 1925, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister) of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill, restored it to pre-War levels. As a result, the price of gold fell rapidly. While the rest of Europe purchased large quantities of gold from the United Kingdom, there was little increase in her gold reserves. This dealt a blow to an already deteriorating British economy. The United Kingdom began to look to its possessions as India to compensate for the gold that was sold.[23]

text: In 1939, Dickson H. Leavens wrote in his book 'Silver Money': "In recent years the increased price of gold, measured in depreciated paper currencies, has attracted to the market (of London) large quantities (of gold) formerly hoarded or held in the form of ornaments in India and China".[25]

text: The Indian rupee replaced the Danish Indian rupee in 1845, the French Indian rupee in 1954 and the Portuguese Indian escudo in 1961. Following the independence of British India in 1947 and the accession of the princely states to the new Union, the Indian rupee replaced all the currencies of the previously autonomous states (although the Hyderabadi rupee was not demonetised until 1959).[26] Some of the states had issued rupees equal to those issued by the British (such as the Travancore rupee). Other currencies (including the Hyderabadi rupee and the Kutch kori) had different values.

text: The values of the subdivisions of the rupee during British rule (and in the first decade of independence) were:

text:
1 rupee = 16 anna (later 100 naye paise)
1 ardharupee = 8 anna, or  1⁄2 rupee (later 50 naye paise)
1 pavala = 4 anna, or  1⁄4 rupee (later 25 naye paise)
1 beda = 2 anna, or  1⁄8 rupee (later equivalent to 12.5 naye paise)
1 anna =  1⁄16 rupee (later equivalent to 6.25 naye paise)
1 paraka =  1⁄2 anna (later equivalent to 3.125 naye paise)
1 kani (pice) =  1⁄4 anna (later equivalent to 1.5625 naye paise)
1 damari (pie) =  1⁄12 anna (later equivalent to 0.520833 naye paise)
1 rupee = 16 anna
1 Athanni (dheli) =  1⁄2 rupee
1 Chawanni =  1⁄4 rupee
1 Dawanni =  1⁄8 rupee
1 Anna/Ekanni =  1⁄16 rupee
1 Taka/Adhanni =  1⁄32 rupee
Paisa =  1⁄64 rupee
Dhela =  1⁄128 rupee ( 1⁄2 paisa)
Pie =  1⁄3 paisa =  1⁄192 rupee
Damari =  1⁄4 paisa =  1⁄256 rupee.

text: In 1957, the rupee was decimalised and divided into 100 naye paise (Hindi for "new paise"); in 1964, the initial "naye" was dropped. Many still refer to 25, 50 and 75 paise as 4, 8 and 12 annas respectively, similar to the usage of "two bits" in American English for a quarter-dollar.

text: International use[edit]

text: As the Straits Settlements were originally an outpost of the British East India Company, In 1837, the Indian rupee was made the sole official currency in the Straits Settlements, as it was administered as part of British India. This attempt was resisted by the locals. However, Spanish dollars continued to circulate and 1845 saw the introduction of coinage for the Straits Settlements using a system of 100 cents = 1 dollar, with the dollar equal to the Spanish dollar or Mexican peso. In 1867, administration of the Straits Settlements was separated from India and the Straits dollar was made the standard currency, and attempts to reintroduce the rupee were finally abandoned.[27]

text: After the Partition of India, the Pakistani rupee came into existence, initially using Indian coins and Indian currency notes simply overstamped with "Pakistan". Previously the Indian rupee was an official currency of other countries, including Aden, Oman, Dubai, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the Trucial States, Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda, the Seychelles and Mauritius.

text: The Indian government introduced the Gulf rupee – also known as the Persian Gulf rupee (XPGR) – as a replacement for the Indian rupee for circulation outside the country with the Reserve Bank of India (Amendment) Act of 1 May 1959. The creation of a separate currency was an attempt to reduce the strain on India's foreign reserves from gold smuggling. After India devalued the rupee on 6 June 1966, those countries still using it – Oman, Qatar, and the Trucial States (which became the United Arab Emirates in 1971) – replaced the Gulf rupee with their own currencies. Kuwait and Bahrain had already done so in 1961 with Kuwaiti dinar and in 1965 with Bahraini dinar, respectively.[28]

text: The Bhutanese ngultrum is pegged at par with the Indian rupee; both currencies are accepted in Bhutan. The Nepalese rupee is pegged at ₹0.625; the Indian rupee is accepted in Bhutan and Nepal, except ₹500 and ₹1000 banknotes, which are not legal tender in Bhutan and Nepal and are banned by their respective governments, though accepted by many retailers.[29] On 29 January 2014, Zimbabwe added the Indian rupee as a legal tender to be used.[1][30]

text: Coins[edit]

text: Pre-independence issues[edit]

text:
Indian rupee (1862).

Obverse: Crowned bust of Queen Victoria surrounded by name.
Reverse: Face value, country and date surrounded by wreath.

Coin made of 91.7% silver.

text: East India Company, 1835[edit]

text: The three Presidencies established by the British East India Company (Bengal, Bombay and Madras) each issued their own coinages until 1835. All three issued rupees and fractions thereof down to  1⁄8- and  1⁄16-rupee in silver. Madras also issued two-rupee coins.

text: Copper denominations were more varied. Bengal issued one-pie,  1⁄2-, one- and two-paise coins. Bombay issued 1-pie,  1⁄4-,  1⁄2-, 1-, 1 1⁄2-, 2- and 4-paise coins. In Madras there were copper coins for two and four pies and one, two and four paisa, with the first two denominated as  1⁄2 and one dub (or  1⁄96 and  1⁄48) rupee. Madras also issued the Madras fanam until 1815.

text: All three Presidencies issued gold mohurs and fractions of mohurs including  1⁄16,  1⁄2,  1⁄4 in Bengal,  1⁄15 (a gold rupee) and  1⁄3 (pancia) in Bombay and  1⁄4,  1⁄3 and  1⁄2 in Madras.

text: In 1835, a single coinage for the EIC was introduced. It consisted of copper  1⁄12,  1⁄4 and  1⁄2 anna, silver  1⁄4,  1⁄3 and 1 rupee and gold 1 and 2 mohurs. In 1841, silver 2 annas were added, followed by copper  1⁄2 pice in 1853. The coinage of the EIC continued to be issued until 1862, even after the Company had been taken over by the Crown.

text: Regal issues, 1862–1947[edit]

text: In 1862, coins were introduced (known as "regal issues") which bore the portrait of Queen Victoria and the designation "India". Their denominations were  1⁄12 anna,  1⁄2 pice,  1⁄4 and  1⁄2 anna (all in copper), 2 annas,  1⁄4,  1⁄2 and one rupee (silver), and five and ten rupees and one mohur (gold). The gold denominations ceased production in 1891, and no  1⁄2-anna coins were issued after 1877.

text: In 1906, bronze replaced copper for the lowest three denominations; in 1907, a cupro-nickel one-anna coin was introduced. In 1918–1919 cupro-nickel two-, four- and eight-annas were introduced, although the four- and eight-annas coins were only issued until 1921 and did not replace their silver equivalents. In 1918, the Bombay mint also struck gold sovereigns and 15-rupee coins identical in size to the sovereigns as an emergency measure during the First World War.

text: In the early 1940s, several changes were implemented. The  1⁄12 anna and  1⁄2 pice ceased production, the  1⁄4 anna was changed to a bronze, holed coin, cupro-nickel and nickel-brass  1⁄2-anna coins were introduced, nickel-brass was used to produce some one- and two-annas coins, and the silver composition was reduced from 91.7 to 50 percent. The last of the regal issues were cupro-nickel  1⁄4-,  1⁄2- and one-rupee pieces minted in 1946 and 1947, bearing the image of George VI, King and Emperor on the obverse and an Indian tiger on the reverse.

text: Post independence issues[edit]

text: Independent predecimal issues, 1950–1957[edit]

text: India's first coins after independence were issued in 1950 in 1 pice,  1⁄2, one and two annas,  1⁄4,  1⁄2 and one-rupee denominations. The sizes and composition were the same as the final regal issues, except for the one-pice (which was bronze, but not holed).

text: Independent decimal issues, 1957–present[edit]

text: The first decimal-coin issues in India consisted of 1, 2, 5, 10, 25 and 50 naye paise, and 1 rupee. The 1 naya paisa was bronze; the 2, 5 & 10 naye paise were cupro-nickel, and the 25 naye paise (nicknamed chawanni; 25 naye paise equals 4 annas), 50 naye paise (also called athanni; 50 naye paise equalled 8 old annas) and 1-rupee coins were nickel. In 1964, the word naya(e) was removed from all coins. Between 1957 and 1967, aluminium one-, two-, three-, five- and ten-paise coins were introduced. In 1968 nickel-brass 20-paise coins were introduced, and replaced by aluminium coins in 1982. Between 1972 and 1975, cupro-nickel replaced nickel in the 25- and 50-paise and the 1-rupee coins; in 1982, cupro-nickel two-rupee coins were introduced. In 1988 stainless steel 10-, 25- and 50-paise coins were introduced, followed by 1- and 5-rupee coins in 1992. Five-rupee coins, made from brass, are being minted by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

text: Between 2005 and 2008 new, lighter fifty-paise, one-, two- and five-rupee coins were introduced, made from ferritic stainless steel. The move was prompted by the melting-down of older coins, whose face value was less than their scrap value. The demonetisation of the 25-(chawanni) paise coin and all paise coins below it took place, and a new series of coins (50 paise – nicknamed athanni – one, two, five and ten rupees, with the new rupee symbol) were put into circulation in 2011. Coins commonly in circulation are one, two, five and ten rupees.[31][32] Although it is still legal tender, the 50-paise (athanni) coin is rarely seen in circulation.[33]

text:
Circulating Coins [31][34]

Value
Technical parameters
Description
Year of

Diameter
Mass
Composition
Shape
Obverse
Reverse
First minting
Last minting

50 paise
19 mm
3.79 g
Ferritic stainless steel
Circular
Emblem of India
Value, the word "PAISE" in English and Hindi, floral motif and year of minting
2011

50 paise
22 mm
3.79 g
Ferritic stainless steel
Circular
Emblem of India
Value, hand in a fist
2008

₹1
25 mm
4.85 g
Ferritic stainless steel
Circular
Emblem of India, value
Value, two stalks of wheat
1992
2004

₹1
25 mm
4.95 g
Ferritic
stainless steel

Circular
Unity from diversity,
cross dividing 4 dots

Value, Emblem of India, Year
of minting

2004
2007

₹1
25 mm
4.85 g
Ferritic stainless steel
Circular
Emblem of India
Value, hand showing thumb (an expression in the Bharata Natyam Dance)
2007
2011

₹1
22 mm
3.79 g
Ferritic stainless steel
Circular
Emblem of India
Value, new rupee sign, floral motif and year of minting
2011

₹2
26 mm
6 g
Cupro-Nickel
Eleven Sided
Emblem of India, Value
National integration
1982
2004

₹2
26.75mm
5.8 g
Ferritic
stainless steel

circular
Unity from diversity,
cross dividing 4 dots

Value, Emblem of India, Year
of minting

2005
2007

₹2
27 mm
5.62 g
Ferritic stainless steel
Circular
Emblem of India, year of minting
Value, hand showing two fingers (Hasta Mudra — hand gesture from the dance Bharata Natyam)
2007
2011

₹2
25 mm
4.85 g
Ferritic stainless steel
Circular
Emblem of India
Value, new rupee sign, floral motif and year of minting
2011

₹5
23 mm
9 g
Cupro-Nickel
Circular
Emblem of India
Value
1992
2006

₹5
23 mm
6 g
Ferritic stainless steel
Circular
Emblem of India
Value, wavy lines
2007
2009

₹5
23 mm
6 g
Brass
Circular
Emblem of India
Value, wavy lines
2009
2011

₹5
23 mm
6 g
Nickel- Brass
Circular
Emblem of India
Value, new rupee sign, floral motif and year of minting
2011

₹10
27 mm
5.62 g
Bimetallic
Circular
Emblem of India and
year of minting

Value with outward radiating pattern of 15 spokes
2006
2010

₹10
27 mm
5.62 g
Bimetallic
Circular
Emblem of India and year of minting
Value with outward radiating pattern of 10 spokes, new rupee sign
2011
present

text: The coins are minted at the four locations of the India Government Mint. The ₹1, ₹2, and ₹5 coins have been minted since independence. Coins minted with the "hand picture" were minted from 2005 onwards.

text: Minting[edit]

text: The Government of India has the only right to mint the coins and one rupee note. The responsibility for coinage comes under the Coinage Act, 1906 which is amended from time to time. The designing and minting of coins in various denominations is also the responsibility of the Government of India. Coins are minted at the five India Government Mints at Mumbai, Alipore (Kolkata), Saifabad (Hyderabad), Cherlapally (Hyderabad) and NOIDA (UP). The coins are issued for circulation only through the Reserve Bank in terms of the RBI Act.[35]

text: Commemorative coins[edit]

text: After independence, the Government of India mint, minted coins imprinted with Indian statesmen, historical and religious figures. In the years 2010 and 2011 for the first time ever ₹75, ₹150 and ₹1000 coins were minted in India to commemorate the Platinum Jubilee of the Reserve Bank of India, the 150th birth anniversary of the birth of Rabindranath Tagore and 1000 years of the Brihadeeswarar Temple, respectively. In 2012 a ₹60 coin was also issued to commemorate 60 years of the Government of India Mint, Kolkata. ₹100 coin was also released commemorating the 100th anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi's return to India.[36] Commemorative coins of ₹125 were released on 4 September 2015 and 6 December 2015 to honour the 125th anniversary of the births of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and B. R. Ambedkar, respectively.[37][38]

text: Banknotes[edit]

text: Pre independence issues[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: In 1861, the government of India introduced its first paper money: ₹10 note in 1864, ₹5 note in 1872, ₹10,000 note in 1899, ₹100 note in 1900, ₹50 note in 1905, ₹500 note in 1907 and ₹1,000 note in 1909. In 1917, ₹1 and ₹2 1⁄2 notes were introduced. The Reserve Bank of India began banknote production in 1938, issuing ₹2, ₹5, ₹10, ₹50, ₹100, ₹1,000 and ₹10,000 notes while the government continued issuing ₹1 note but demonetized the ₹500 and ₹2 1⁄2 notes.

text: Post independence issues[edit]

text: After independence, new designs were introduced to replace the portrait of George VI. The government continued issuing the ₹1 note, while the Reserve Bank issued other denominations (including the ₹5,000 and ₹10,000 notes introduced in 1949). All pre-independence banknotes were officially demonetised with effect from 28 April 1957.[39][40]

text: During the 1970s, ₹20 and ₹50 notes were introduced; denominations higher than ₹100 were demonetised in 1978. In 1987, the ₹500 note was introduced, followed by the ₹1,000 note in 2000 while ₹1 and ₹2 notes were discontinued in 1995.

text: The design of banknotes is approved by the central government, on the recommendation of the central board of the Reserve Bank of India.[3] Currency notes are printed at the Currency Note Press in Nashik, the Bank Note Press in Dewas, the Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd at Salboni and Mysore and at the Watermark Paper Manufacturing Mill in Hoshangabad. The Mahatma Gandhi Series of banknotes are issued by the Reserve Bank of India as legal tender. The series is so named because the obverse of each note features a portrait of Mahatma Gandhi. Since its introduction in 1996, this series has replaced all issued banknotes of the Lion capital series. The RBI introduced the series in 1996 with ₹10 and ₹500 banknotes. At present, the RBI issues banknotes in denominations from ₹5 to ₹2,000. The printing of ₹5 notes (which had stopped earlier) resumed in 2009.

text: As of January 2012, the new '₹' sign has been incorporated into banknotes of the Mahatma Gandhi Series in denominations of ₹10, ₹20, ₹50, ₹100, ₹500 and ₹1,000.[41][42][43][44] In January 2014 RBI announced that it would be withdrawing from circulation all currency notes printed prior to 2005 by 31 March 2014. The deadline was later extended to 1 January 2015. The dead line was further extended to 30 June 2016.[45]

text: There had been discussions on the necessity to withdraw notes of higher denominations such as the ₹1000 and ₹500 banknotes, considering their role in perpetuating unaccounted money. This move was taken to further curb the problem of fake currency circulation.[46][47][48] While noting that the withdrawal of high denomination notes can lead to an increase in printing costs for RBI, there was an opinion that these costs should be weighed against the misuse of high-value notes.[49] On 8 November 2016 Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the demonetization of ₹500 and ₹1,000 banknotes of the Mahatma Gandhi Series, with a detailed step-down program. This program would stop all usage of ₹500 and ₹1,000 rupee notes by 11 November 2016.[50] Citizens with valid identification will have until 30 December 2016 to exchange the notes for lower tender at any bank or post office, and until 31 March 2017 to exchange them at designated RBI offices by filling in a declaration form.[51]

text: On 8 November 2016, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) announced the issuance of new ₹500 and ₹2,000 banknotes in the Mahatma Gandhi New Series of banknotes.[52][53][54] The new ₹2,000 banknote has a magenta base colour, with a portrait of Mahatma Gandhi as well as the Ashoka Pillar Emblem on the front. The denomination also has a motif of the Mars Orbiter Mission (MOM) on the back, depicting the country's first venture into interplanetary space. The new ₹500 banknote has a stone grey base colour with an image of the Red Fort along with the Indian flag printed on the back. Both the banknotes also have the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan logo printed on the back. The banknote denominations of ₹200, ₹100 and ₹50 are also expected to be introduced in the new Mahatma Gandhi New Series, in the coming months, intended to replace all banknotes of the previous Mahatma Gandhi Series.[55] On 13 June 2017, RBI introduced new ₹500 notes, but the old ones continue being legal tender. The design is similar to the current notes in the Mahatma Gandhi (New) Series, except they will come with an inset 'A'.

text: Current circulating banknotes[edit]

text: As of 10 November 2016, the current circulating banknotes are in denominations of ₹5, ₹10, ₹20, ₹50 and ₹100 are of the Mahatma Gandhi Series, while the denominations of ₹50, ₹200, ₹500 and ₹2,000 are of the new Mahatma Gandhi New Series, and the denomination of ₹1 is of the Lion Capital Series.

text:
Current circulating banknotes

Image
Value
Dimensions
Main colour
Description
Date of Issue
Circulation

Obverse
Reverse
Obverse
Reverse
Watermark

₹1
97 × 63 mm
Blue
One-rupee coin
Sagar Samrat oil rig
Pillars of Ashoka
1994 / 2015[56]
Limited

₹5
117 × 63 mm
Green
Mahatma Gandhi
Tractor
Mahatma Gandhi
2002 / 2009
Limited

₹10
137 × 63 mm
Orange-violet
Rhinoceros, elephant, tiger
1996 / 2006
Wide

₹20
147 × 63 mm
Red-orange
Mount Harriet, Port Blair
2001 / 2006
Wide

₹50
135 × 66 mm
Fluorescent Blue
Hampi with Chariot
1997 / 2005/ 2017
Wide

₹100
157 × 73 mm
Blue-green at centre, brown-purple at 2 sides
Himalaya Mountains
1996 / 2005
Wide

₹200
146 × 66 mm
Bright Yellow
Sanchi Stupa
2017
Wide

₹500
150 × 66 mm
Stone Gray
Red Fort
2016
Wide

₹2000
166 × 66 mm
Magenta
Mangalyaan
2016
Wide

For table standards, see the banknote specification table.

text: Convertibility[edit]

text:
Most traded currencies by value
Currency distribution of global foreign exchange market turnover[57]

Rank
Currency
ISO 4217 code
(symbol)
 % daily share
(April 2016)

1

 United States dollar

USD ($)

80.6%

2

 Euro

EUR (€)

37.4%

3

 Japanese yen

JPY (¥)

21.6%

4

 Pound sterling

GBP (£)

12.8%

5

 Australian dollar

AUD (A$)

6.9%

6

 Canadian dollar

CAD (C$)

5.1%

7

 Swiss franc

CHF (Fr)

4.8%

8

 Renminbi

CNY (元)

4.0%

9

 Swedish krona

SEK (kr)

2.2%

10

 New Zealand dollar

NZD (NZ$)

2.1%

11

 Mexican peso

MXN ($)

1.9%

12

 Singapore dollar

SGD (S$)

1.8%

13

 Hong Kong dollar

HKD (HK$)

1.7%

14

 Norwegian krone

NOK (kr)

1.7%

15

 South Korean won

KRW (₩)

1.7%

16

 Turkish lira

TRY (₺)

1.4%

17

 Russian ruble

RUB (₽)

1.1%

18

 Indian rupee

INR (₹)

1.1%

19

 Brazilian real

BRL (R$)

1.0%

20

 South African rand

ZAR (R)

1.0%

Other
7.1%

Total[58]
200.0%

text: Officially, the Indian rupee has a market-determined exchange rate. However, the RBI trades actively in the USD/INR currency market to impact effective exchange rates. Thus, the currency regime in place for the Indian rupee with respect to the US dollar is a de facto controlled exchange rate. This is sometimes called a "managed float". Other rates (such as the EUR/INR and INR/JPY) have the volatility typical of floating exchange rates, and often create persistent arbitrage opportunities against the RBI.[59] Unlike China, successive administrations (through RBI, the central bank) have not followed a policy of pegging the INR to a specific foreign currency at a particular exchange rate. RBI intervention in currency markets is solely to ensure low volatility in exchange rates, and not to influence the rate (or direction) of the Indian rupee in relation to other currencies.[60]

text: Also affecting convertibility is a series of customs regulations restricting the import and export of rupees. Legally, foreign nationals are forbidden from importing or exporting rupees; Indian nationals can import and export only up to ₹7,500 at a time, and the possession of ₹500 and ₹1,000 rupee notes in Nepal is prohibited.[61][62]

text: RBI also exercises a system of capital controls in addition to intervention (through active trading) in currency markets. On the current account, there are no currency-conversion restrictions hindering buying or selling foreign exchange (although trade barriers exist). On the capital account, foreign institutional investors have convertibility to bring money into and out of the country and buy securities (subject to quantitative restrictions). Local firms are able to take capital out of the country in order to expand globally. However, local households are restricted in their ability to diversify globally. Because of the expansion of the current and capital accounts, India is increasingly moving towards full de facto convertibility.

text: There is some confusion regarding the interchange of the currency with gold, but the system that India follows is that money cannot be exchanged for gold under any circumstances due to gold's lack of liquidity;[citation needed] therefore, money cannot be changed into gold by the RBI. India follows the same principle as Great Britain and the US.

text: Reserve Bank of India clarifies its position regarding the promissory clause printed on each banknote:

text: "As per Section 26 of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Bank is liable to pay the value of banknote. This is payable on demand by RBI, being the issuer. The Bank's obligation to pay the value of banknote does not arise out of a contract but out of statutory provisions.The promissory clause printed on the banknotes i.e., "I promise to pay the bearer an amount of X" is a statement which means that the banknote is a legal tender for X amount. The obligation on the part of the Bank is to exchange a banknote for coins of an equivalent amount." [63]

text: Chronology[edit]

text:
1991 – India began to lift restrictions on its currency. A number of reforms removed restrictions on current account transactions (including trade, interest payments and remittances and some capital asset-based transactions). Liberalised Exchange Rate Management System (LERMS) (a dual-exchange-rate system) introduced partial convertibility of the rupee in March 1992.[64]
1997 – A panel (set up to explore capital account convertibility) recommended that India move towards full convertibility by 2000, but the timetable was abandoned in the wake of the 1997–1998 East Asian financial crisis.
2006 – Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asked the Finance Minister and the Reserve Bank of India to prepare a road map for moving towards capital account convertibility.[65]
On 8 November 2016, the Government of India announced the demonetisation of all ₹500 (US$7.80) and ₹1,000 (US$16) banknotes of the Mahatma Gandhi Series.[66] The government claimed that the action would curtail the shadow economy and crack down on the use of illicit and counterfeit cash to fund illegal activity and terrorism.[67][68]

text: Exchange rates[edit]

text: Historic exchange rates[edit]

text: For almost a century since the Great Recoinage of 1816 until the outbreak of World War I, the Indian rupee sustained parity with the US dollar while pegged to the pound sterling that was exchanged at ₹4 12a 10ps (or 50 old pence per rupee). Effectively, the rupee bought 1s 4d (or ₹15 per sterling) during 1899–1914. The gold silver ratio expanded during 1870–1910. Unlike India, her colonial master Britain was on gold standard. To meet the Home Charges (i.e., expenditure in England) the colonial government had to remit a larger number of rupees and this necessitated increased taxation, unrest and nationalism.

text: Thereafter, both the rupee and the sterling gradually declined in worth against the US dollar due to deficits in trade, capital and budget. In 1966, the rupee was devalued and pegged to the dollar. The peg to the pound was at ₹13.33 to a pound (approx. 40 rupees to £3), and the pound itself averaged US$2.79.[70]. That means officially speaking the USD to INR rate would be closer to ₹4.78. In 1966, India changed the peg to dollar at ₹7.50.[71]

text:
Indian rupees per currency unit averaged over the year[72][73][74]

Currency
ISO code
1947
1966
1995
1996
2000
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2013
2014
2015
2016

Australian dollar
AUD

27.69
26.07
33.28
34.02
34.60
36.81
38.22
42.00
56.36
54.91
48.21
49.96

Bahraini Dinar
BHD
–
13.35
91.75
91.24
117.78
120.39
120.40
109.59
115.65
128.60
121.60
155.95
164.55
170.6
178.3

Bangladeshi taka
BDT
–
–
0.84
0.84
0.77
0.66
0.63
0.57
0.71
0.66
0.68
0.80
0.88
0.84
0.85

Canadian dollar
CAD

5.90
23.63
26.00
30.28
34.91
41.09
42.92
44.59
52.17
44.39
56.88
49.53
47.94
52.32

Chinese Yuan
CNY
–

5.80

9.93
10.19
10.15

Emirate dirham
AED
–
–

17.47
18.26

Euroa
EUR
–
–
42.41
44.40
41.52
56.38
64.12
68.03
60.59
65.69

70.21
72.60
75.84

Israeli shekelb
ILS
13.33
21.97
11.45
10.76
10.83

17.08
16.57
17.47

Japanese Yenc
JPY
6.6
2.08
32.66
32.96
41.79
41.87
38.93
35.00
42.27
51.73
52.23
60.07
57.79
53.01
62.36

Kuwaiti Dinar
KWD
–
17.80
115.5
114.5
144.9
153.3
155.5
144.6
161.7
167.7
159.2
206.5
214.3
213.1
222.4

Malaysian Ringgit
MYR
–
2.07
12.97
14.11
11.84
11.91
12.36
11.98
13.02
13.72
14.22
18.59
18.65
16.47
16.37

Maldivian rufiyaa
MVR
1.00
1.33
2.93
2.91

4.58
4.76
5.01
5.23

Pakistani rupee
PKR
1.00
1.33
1.08
0.95
0.80
0.77
0.75
0.67
0.61
0.59
0.53
0.57
0.60
0.62
0.64

Pound sterling
GBP
13.33
17.76
51.14
55.38
68.11
83.06
80.63
76.38
71.33
83.63
70.63
91.08
100.51
98.11
92.00

Russian rubled
RUB
6.60
15.00
7.56
6.69
1.57

1.05
0.99

Saudi riyal
SAR

1.41

17.11
17.88

Singapore dollar
SGD
–
–
23.13
25.16
26.07
26.83
30.93
33.60
34.51
41.27
33.58
46.84
45.86
46.67
48.86

Sri Lankan rupee
LKR

1.33
0.63
0.64
0.58

0.47
0.46
0.45
0.46

Swiss franc
CHF

1.46
27.48

43.95
66.95
66.71
66.70
68.40

U.S. dollar
USD
3.30
7.50
32.45
35.44
44.20
45.34
43.95
39.50
48.76
45.33
45.00
68.80
66.07
66.73
67.19

a Before 1 January 1999, the European Currency Unit (ECU)
b Before 1980, the Israeli pound (ILP)
c 100 Japanese Yen
d Before 1993, the Soviet ruble (SUR), in 1995 and 1996 - per 1000 rubles

text: Current exchange rates[edit]

text:
Current INR exchange rates

From Google Finance:
AUD CAD CHF EUR GBP HKD JPY USD RUB CNY AED

From Yahoo! Finance:
AUD CAD CHF EUR GBP HKD JPY USD RUB CNY AED

From XE:
AUD CAD CHF EUR GBP HKD JPY USD RUB CNY AED

From OANDA:
AUD CAD CHF EUR GBP HKD JPY USD RUB CNY AED

From fxtop.com:
AUD CAD CHF EUR GBP HKD JPY USD RUB CNY AED