#Demonetisation: Cap On Withdrawal Of Money From Banks Does Not Violate Fundamental Rights: Karnataka HC [Read Judgment]
It is next only to impossible for any policy-maker or decision-maker to anticipate all the difficulties and contingencies, the Court said.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a challenge against cap on withdrawal of money from bank as part of demonetisation drive observing that such restrictions are not violative of Article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution of India.
Many cooperative societies had approached the High Court contending that, in the absence of proclamation of financial emergency under Article 360 of the Constitution of India, the restriction that one customer cannot draw more than ` 24,000/- per week from his/her/its account in the bank is not traceable to any statutory provision.
Perusing the notification issued by the Government and the RBI, Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri observed that the demonetization scheme is to tackle the menaces of fake currency notes, black money and terrorism. The bench further said: “In the larger interests of the society, when a comprehensive mission is being accomplished, certain regulatory measures during the period of transition are bound to affect the interests of some sections of people. There cannot be any dispute that the collateral damage, if any, on any section is to be minimized, if it cannot be avoided.”
The court further said: “The menaces of black money, fake currency and terrorism are hydra-headed monsters. When one head of the monster is chopped off, it would raise its other ugly heads. Stamping them out is indeed a herculean task. It is next only to impossible for any policy-maker or decision-maker to anticipate all the difficulties and contingencies. As and when the difficulties are noticed in the course of implementing the policy, the necessary remedial measures have to be taken.”
Dismissing the Writ petitions, the Court said: “The administrators and legislators are entitled to frame policies and take such administrative decisions, as they think necessary in the public interest. The courts should not ordinarily interfere with the policy-decisions, unless they are manifestly illegal and arbitrary.”
Read the Judgment here.
This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.