#Demonetisation: Read Nine Questions Referred to Constitution Bench [Read Order]

A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice TS Thakur on Friday referred the following questions relating demonetisation to the consideration of constitution bench.

(i) Whether the notification dated 8th November 2016 is ultra vires Section 26(2) and Sections 7,17,23,24,29 and 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934;

(ii) Does the notification contravene the provisions of Article 300(A) of the Constitution;

(iii) Assuming that the notification has been validly issued under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 whether it is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution;

(iv) Whether the limit on withdrawal of cash from the funds deposited in bank accounts has no basis in law and violates Articles 14,19 and 21;

(v) Whether the implementation of the impugned notification(s) suffers from procedural and/or substantive unreasonableness and thereby violates Articles 14 and 19 and, if so, to what effect?

(vi) In the event that Section 26(2) is held to permit demonetization, does it suffer from excessive delegation of legislative power thereby rendering it ultra vires the Constitution;

(vii) What is the scope of judicial review in matters relating to fiscal and economic policy of the Government;

(viii) Whether a petition by a political party on the issues raised is maintainable under Article 32; and (ix) Whether District Co-operative Banks have been discriminated against by excluding them from accepting deposits and exchanging demonetized notes.

Read the order here.

This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.

Got Something To Say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

*

  • Rabindra Nath Roy says:

    Supreme court has taken up the matter in right earnest. But by the time judgement comes whatever, the politicians and bureaucrats who indulged in the luxury of demonitisation which brought havoc in the lives of millions would have been lost and they would never be compensated. And this is the reason the Politicians at the helm of affairs are not worried or fear Judiciary.

  • D.N.Jayanth, says:

    Dear sir,
    When our century old laws based on basically on cash transactions on cash only like N.I. Act. T.P. Act Contract Act Etc.,and all commercial Acts, and other Acts passed by parliament.
    Is it justifiable for the central Government to bring cashless transaction ? will it not affect
    the very laws and rights of parties in future. ?
    Will not it conflict the principle of law in near future? without amend the existing laws. For example promissory note here only on cash. T.P. Act for example sale and mortgage only only cash . for contract for sale purchase, biils of exchange, cheque , pledge,contracts, Etc., it is all based on the cash an cash transaction only and not on cash less.cashless economy.
    When government want to introduce any new policy ,Is it not its duty to see that Is there any existing laws which will affect the same or not?
    Cashless society or cashless economy is also good it is not anybodies objections but is it not duty of the government to see that is there any thing to get any new laws according to new situation, just like introduction of bringing cyber laws in India after see trouble by the general public for quite numbers of years, there is no gurantee that there will be no problem in near future regarding the cashless transaction and its legal implications , if one get legal problem what is remedy and how to proves the in laws if so what is law according to new system.

  • Akash Tandon says:

    How much interest bank given on political parties deposit amounts on his current a/c

Top