Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Remarking that it was aware of the “Lakshman Rekha” on judicial review of policy decisions made by the government, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court agreed to consider the pleas challenging the Modi government’s 2016 decision to ban notes of Rs 1000 & Rs 500.
Reviving the pleas which were lying in the judicial closet since 2016, the 5-judge bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna asked centre and RBI to file its detailed affidavit.
Posting the pleas for November 9, 2022, court said, “We always know where the Lakshman Rekha is, but the manner in which it was done has to be examined. We have to hear the counsel to decide that.”
“Normally when issues are raised before the constitution bench, it’s the duty of the bench to answer them,” the bench remarked.
The bench also added that the same had to be decided to come to a conclusion on whether the issue had become a “mere academic” exercise.
With an attempt to convince the court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referring to court’s earlier view wherein it had said that it would decide as to whether the decision had become a mere “academic” exercise and required any consideration at all on Wednesday submitted before the five-judge bench that some pleas which deals with individual problems and issues that have also been tagged that could be taken care of on the administrative side with RBI, Bank, Min of Finance.
“For this we may not waste time on the constitution bench. Individual issues can be sorted out,” Mehta added.
Attorney General for India R Venkataramani argued that the notification had now gone beyond and the act had replaced the whole thing. He added that it was essentially an academic declaration.
Questioning the constitutionality of the action taken with regards to demonetisation, Senior Advocate and former Finance Minister P Chidambaram submitted that the issues have not become academic, were “live” and may arise in the future. He added that the 1978 demonetisation was by a separate act of the parliament but for the 2016 decisions provisions of the RBI Act were used.
“It’s not demonetisation but new notes for the old. This kind of demonetisation requires a separate act of the Parliament,” he added.
Apprising the bench at the pace at which the decision was taken, Chidambaram said, “The government “advised” the RBI to make the recommendation for demonetisation. If the Govt has a suggestion, it can place it before the Board. But instead they “advised” on Nov 7 evening & RBI passed a resolution on Nov 8. RBI should advise the Govt, not the other way round.”
The plea also challenged the validity of notification dated November 8, 2016 issued under Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 on the ground that it was violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. On December 16, 2016, a three-judge bench of the SC had although refused to grant interim relief against the decision of demonetisation but had framed questions to be determined by a larger bench. The court had also stayed the proceedings in the pleas challenging the policy, pending before HC’s and had issued notice on the transfer petitions moved by the Centre.
NEW DELHI: Remarking that it was aware of the “Lakshman Rekha” on judicial review of policy decisions made by the government, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court agreed to consider the pleas challenging the Modi government’s 2016 decision to ban notes of Rs 1000 & Rs 500.
Reviving the pleas which were lying in the judicial closet since 2016, the 5-judge bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna asked centre and RBI to file its detailed affidavit.
Posting the pleas for November 9, 2022, court said, “We always know where the Lakshman Rekha is, but the manner in which it was done has to be examined. We have to hear the counsel to decide that.”
“Normally when issues are raised before the constitution bench, it’s the duty of the bench to answer them,” the bench remarked.
The bench also added that the same had to be decided to come to a conclusion on whether the issue had become a “mere academic” exercise.
With an attempt to convince the court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referring to court’s earlier view wherein it had said that it would decide as to whether the decision had become a mere “academic” exercise and required any consideration at all on Wednesday submitted before the five-judge bench that some pleas which deals with individual problems and issues that have also been tagged that could be taken care of on the administrative side with RBI, Bank, Min of Finance.
“For this we may not waste time on the constitution bench. Individual issues can be sorted out,” Mehta added.
Attorney General for India R Venkataramani argued that the notification had now gone beyond and the act had replaced the whole thing. He added that it was essentially an academic declaration.
Questioning the constitutionality of the action taken with regards to demonetisation, Senior Advocate and former Finance Minister P Chidambaram submitted that the issues have not become academic, were “live” and may arise in the future. He added that the 1978 demonetisation was by a separate act of the parliament but for the 2016 decisions provisions of the RBI Act were used.
“It’s not demonetisation but new notes for the old. This kind of demonetisation requires a separate act of the Parliament,” he added.
Apprising the bench at the pace at which the decision was taken, Chidambaram said, “The government “advised” the RBI to make the recommendation for demonetisation. If the Govt has a suggestion, it can place it before the Board. But instead they “advised” on Nov 7 evening & RBI passed a resolution on Nov 8. RBI should advise the Govt, not the other way round.”
The plea also challenged the validity of notification dated November 8, 2016 issued under Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 on the ground that it was violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. On December 16, 2016, a three-judge bench of the SC had although refused to grant interim relief against the decision of demonetisation but had framed questions to be determined by a larger bench. The court had also stayed the proceedings in the pleas challenging the policy, pending before HC’s and had issued notice on the transfer petitions moved by the Centre.
