Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Centre on Wednesday failed to file an affidavit before the Supreme Court explaining various aspects of the decision-making process behind the government’s 2016 demonetization decision. The apex court adjourned the hearing in the pleas to November 24.
Accepting the Centre’s plea, a bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna said, “Normally, a constitution bench never adjourns like this. We never rise like this once we have started. It is very embarrassing for this court.”
AG R Venkataramani while seeking more time to file the affidavit expressed his regrets for seeking an adjournment. Opposing the Centre’s request, senior advocate Shyam Divan urged the bench to allow the petitioners challenging the policy to argue. He argued that seeking deferment of proceedings before a constitution bench has never been a practice.
While adjourning the proceedings, the court asked the Centre and the RBI to submit their affidavits within a week. On October 12, the five-judge bench remarked that it was aware of the ‘Lakshman Rekha’ on the judicial review of policy decisions made by the government. Yet it agreed to consider the pleas challenging the government decision. The bench then asked the Centre and RBI to file its detailed affidavit.
The petitioner has challenged the validity of the notification dated November 8, 2016, issued under the RBI Act, 1934 on the ground that it violated Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution.
On December 16, 2016, the SC’s three-judge bench had refused to grant interim relief against the decision of demonetization, 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 HCs and had issued notice on the transfer petitions moved by the Centre.
Also in top court
Centre defends exclusion of converted Dalits from SC listDefending the exclusion of Dalits who have embraced Christianity or Islam into the list of Scheduled Castes, the central government said that Christianity and Islam are historically foreign religions and thereby do not recognise the caste system as done in Hinduism. The Centre’s response was filed in a batch of pleas that argued that exclusion of Christian and Muslim Dalits from the SC list was discriminatory. Currently only Dalits of Hindus, Sikh and Buddhist faith can be categorised as SCs.
‘Govt vs safai karamchari?’ CJI dismisses TN pleaThe apex sourt on Wednesday expressed its anguish over the state of Tamil Nadu filing an appeal against Madras HC’s ruling of granting relief to a sweeper in a government higher secondary school by extending him the benefit of regular appointment. While dismissing the appeal, CJI Chandrachud said, “A man served the school for 22 years. At the end of those 22 years, the person goes home without gratuity, pension… The might of the government against a Safai Karamchari? Sorry. We’re dismissing.”
NEW DELHI: The Centre on Wednesday failed to file an affidavit before the Supreme Court explaining various aspects of the decision-making process behind the government’s 2016 demonetization decision. The apex court adjourned the hearing in the pleas to November 24.
Accepting the Centre’s plea, a bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna said, “Normally, a constitution bench never adjourns like this. We never rise like this once we have started. It is very embarrassing for this court.”
AG R Venkataramani while seeking more time to file the affidavit expressed his regrets for seeking an adjournment. Opposing the Centre’s request, senior advocate Shyam Divan urged the bench to allow the petitioners challenging the policy to argue. He argued that seeking deferment of proceedings before a constitution bench has never been a practice.
While adjourning the proceedings, the court asked the Centre and the RBI to submit their affidavits within a week. On October 12, the five-judge bench remarked that it was aware of the ‘Lakshman Rekha’ on the judicial review of policy decisions made by the government. Yet it agreed to consider the pleas challenging the government decision. The bench then asked the Centre and RBI to file its detailed affidavit.
The petitioner has challenged the validity of the notification dated November 8, 2016, issued under the RBI Act, 1934 on the ground that it violated Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution.
On December 16, 2016, the SC’s three-judge bench had refused to grant interim relief against the decision of demonetization, 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 HCs and had issued notice on the transfer petitions moved by the Centre.
Also in top court
Centre defends exclusion of converted Dalits from SC list
Defending the exclusion of Dalits who have embraced Christianity or Islam into the list of Scheduled Castes, the central government said that Christianity and Islam are historically foreign religions and thereby do not recognise the caste system as done in Hinduism. The Centre’s response was filed in a batch of pleas that argued that exclusion of Christian and Muslim Dalits from the SC list was discriminatory. Currently only Dalits of Hindus, Sikh and Buddhist faith can be categorised as SCs.
‘Govt vs safai karamchari?’ CJI dismisses TN plea
The apex sourt on Wednesday expressed its anguish over the state of Tamil Nadu filing an appeal against Madras HC’s ruling of granting relief to a sweeper in a government higher secondary school by extending him the benefit of regular appointment. While dismissing the appeal, CJI Chandrachud said, “A man served the school for 22 years. At the end of those 22 years, the person goes home without gratuity, pension… The might of the government against a Safai Karamchari? Sorry. We’re dismissing.”
