DEMONETISATION Valid Or Not? : Supreme Court Constitution Bench Hearing- LIVE UPDATES
Supreme Court Constitution Bench to hear petitions challenging the #Demonetization of Rs 500 & Rs 1000 currency notes by Central Govt in 2016.On Oct 12, the Centre was directed to file a comprehensive affidavit & disclose relevant docs.Constitution Bench comprising S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna JJ decided to hear this case after holding that...
Supreme Court Constitution Bench to hear petitions challenging the #Demonetization of Rs 500 & Rs 1000 currency notes by Central Govt in 2016.
On Oct 12, the Centre was directed to file a comprehensive affidavit & disclose relevant docs.
Constitution Bench comprising S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna JJ decided to hear this case after holding that the legal issue had not become "academic".
Senior Adv and four-time Finance Minister P Chidambaram gave a brief overview of his arguments.
"Where is the application of mind?" the senior counsel asked.
On Nov 9, the Attorney-General, R. Venkataramani sought an extension for the filing of a comprehensive affidavit.
"It is embarrassing that a Constitution Bench has to adjourn like this," Bench remarked.
A week later, the Centre filed an affidavit saying 2016 demonetisation was "well-considered" and led to benefits.
FOLLOW LIVE UPDATES OF TODAY'S HEARING HERE
Chidambaram: Demonetisation must be held to a much higher standard. If there is one major economic decision taken in last 10-20 years which affected the lives of all citizens, it is demonetisation.
Chidambaram concludes.
Bench rises.
Chidambaram: The mildest step would have been to stop issuing certain currency notes. The second option was to replace the currency already issued with new notes w better security features. The third and most extreme is demonetisation.
Chidambaram: I have to conclude by saying that there is no evidence that they examined any alt methods to deal w the problem of fake currency, etc. Demonetisation is an extreme step.
Chidambaram, relying on lead judgement of Sikri J in the 2018 Aadhar constitutionality case.
"Rules are disproportionate - a mere ritualistic incantation of “money laundering”, “black money” does not satisfy the first test," he quotes.
5. K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India [(2019) 1 SCC 1]
6. Sukhnandan Saran Dinesh Kumar v Union Of India [(1982) 2 SCC 150]
BVN J: You must appreciate this judgement because it reads like a movie plot and ends with a climax.
Nazeer J says something to VR J, who reveals, "My brother is saying, will there be a Baahubali 2?"
(Everyone laughs)
4. Internet & Mobile Assn. of India v Reserve Bank of India [(2020) 10 SCC 274]
"This is Justice V Ramasubramanian's decision on cryptocurrency."
4. Lt. General Manomoy Ganguly Vsm v Union of India [(2018) 18 SCC 83]
"Court can ensure all relevant factors are taken into consideration and, no irrelevant considerations have crept in in the decision-making process," Chidambaram quotes.
3. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v Union of India [(2012) 3 SCC 1]
"What is the procedure the Minister followed, and that procedure was found to be improper."
Chidambaram takes the court through a number of judgements on the power of judicial review.
1. Tata Cellular v Union Of India [AIR 1996 SC 11]
2. Uttamrao Shivdas Jankar v. Ranjitsinh Vijaysinh Mohite Patil [(2009) 13 SCC 131]