Demonetisation: Supreme Court asks Centre to spell out steps to ease inconvenience

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said that the government is aware of the situation in co-operative banks which lack proper infrastructure and mechanism as compared to scheduled banks.

By: PTI | New Delhi | Updated: December 2, 2016 4:51 pm
demonetisation, Supreme court, demonetisation inconveniences, cooperative banks, P Chidambaram, news, latest news, India news, national news Senior advocate P Chidambaram, appearing for co-operative banks, questioned the government’s decision, saying that the rural economy is almost paralysed due to non-inclusion of co-operative banks.

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to spell out measures taken to ease the sufferings and inconvenience of people in rural areas, who are mostly dependent on co-operative banks, post-demonetisation. A bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice D Y Chandrachud, while hearing a batch of pleas challenging various aspects of demonetisation, said all the parties should sit together and prepare a list of categories of cases which could be referred to high courts and those that could be heard by the apex court.

WATCH VIDEO: Speed News: Parliament, Pakiatan, PM Modi, Arun Jaitley & More

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, said that the government is aware of the situation in co-operative banks which lack proper infrastructure and mechanism as compared to scheduled banks.

“Entire chapter in the additional affidavit filed by the Centre is dedicated to the issue of co-operative banks. It is not that we are not aware of the situation but these (the co-operative banks) lack proper facilities, mechanism and proper infrastructure as compared to scheduled banks,” he said.

He said that the government has deliberately kept co-operative banks out of the drive as these did not have the expertise to detect fake currency. Rohatgi said, “Several cases are filed each passing day in various high courts on various aspects post demonetisation and it is not possible to deal with cases simultaneously in Kerala, Kolkata, Jaipur and Mumbai… All these matter should be clubbed together and be referred to any one high court or the apex court should hear them.”

Senior advocate P Chidambaram, appearing for co-operative banks, questioned the government’s decision, saying that the rural economy is almost paralysed due to non-inclusion of co-operative banks. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, suggested that they will sit together and file the list of categories by Monday. The bench then posted the hearing on the matter to December 5.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

  1. D
    Dec 2, 2016 at 12:22 pm
    SC is playing safe game over Demonetization to please all.SC is also aware that it had forced Govt to appoint SIT over unearthing Black Moneys in and out of India.It is her(SC) baby and Modi Govt taking more care of it by Demonetization.However it is suggested that SC may come with good suggestions like it did in past in uprooting Black Moneys.SC has special role to see end of Black Moneys from Indian Economy as Public have more faith in SC than executive.
  2. R
    Dec 2, 2016 at 10:37 am
    The information to "spell out measures taken to ease the sufferings and inconvenience of people" must include the amount of old / banned currency notes deposited with banks and thustaken out from circulation and the amount of alternative cashh currrency infused into back into circulation. The statistics should on day-to-day basis which will givee idea of disparity in these two amounts imposed by mis-handling situation and the extent to which corrective measures became effective.
  3. K
    K N
    Dec 2, 2016 at 11:39 am
    As congress has lost capacity to take on BJP they are taking recourse of judiciary to achieve their political objective .
  4. N
    Niladri Bose
    Dec 2, 2016 at 12:37 pm
    Five Reasons Why the Recent Demonetisation May Be Legally Unsoundlt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;BY THE WIRE ON 20/11/2016lt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;One of the four peions challenging the recent demonetisation of high-denomination currency notes, filed in the Supreme Court, invokes at least five significant legal grounds to show why it may not be legally;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The peion, filed by Supreme Court advocate V.K. Biju who is known for taking up public interest causes, on behalf of the peioner Adil Alvi, also an advocate in the Supreme Court, has named the Ministry of Finance and the Reserve bank of India as the respondents. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared and argued for the peioner on;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The peion, which comes up for hearing again on November 25, claims that since the decision is of wide importance and pivotal to monetary policy in India, it cannot be left to the whims of the central;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Excessive delegationlt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;First and foremost, it ails the very consutionality of section 26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, on the grounds of excessive;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Section 26(2) says that on recommendation of the central board of the RBI, the central government may, by notification in the Gazette of India, declare that with effect from a date specified in the notification, any series of bank notes of any denomination shall cease to be legal;br/gt;lt;br/gt;According to the peion, fixing the date from which the demonetisation would come into force is the substratum of power under section 26(2) and consutes an “essential law making function” which cannot be delegated to be fixed by the central government on its own determination. “It is settled law that essential law making function cannot be delegated,” the peion;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The only way to save section 26(2) from being ultra vires the consution is to regard that the power to fix such a date contemplates a reasonable notice to the people at large, the peion;br/gt;lt;br/gt;No alternative to legislationlt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Second, the peion argues that the precedent of 1978 – The High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978 repealing the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance 1978 – and section 26A of the RBI Act, clearly suggest that demonetisation of this scale with such draconian effect can only be done by a statute of;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Section 26A – inserted in the RBI Act in 1956 by parliament – makes it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in section 26, no bank note of the denominational value of Rs 500, Rs 1,000 or Rs 10,000 issued before January 13, 1946, shall be legal tender in payment or on;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The point here is that in 1956, the then central government found it imperative to declare the pre-1946 high denomination currency notes as ceasing to be legal tender only through an amendment to the RBI Act and not through a gazette notification as has been done;br/gt;lt;br/gt;During the arguments in the Supreme Court on November 15, the Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi distinguished demonetisation from the declaration that currency notes of a certain denomination cease to be a legal tender, saying while the former would require amending the RBI Act, the latter could be achieved through a gazette;br/gt;lt;br/gt;This is because demonetisation would make even the keeping of a currency note which is not legal tender an offence and therefore, for depriving the freedom of citizens, recourse to law is a;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Rohatgi told the court that demonetisation would take its legal form once the RBI Act is amended, in due course, after the last date for exchange of old notes is over, so as to make it an offence to keep the illegal;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The non-recourse to the amendment of the RBI Act was because of the need to ensure confidentiality till the decision was taken, consistent with its objects – fight corruption, black money and financing of terrorism through counterfeiting of currency notes, he explained. But the question of why the RBI Act did not envisage the need for confidentiality during demonetisation went unanswered by;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Citing another precedent, as laid down by the Supreme Court in 1978 (Madan Mohan Pathak v Union of India), the peion suggests that wiping out of a public debt amounts to acquisition, which can be done only by an Act of parliament, according to the;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Why article 19(6) can’t come to rescuelt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Third, the peion argues that the November 8 notification was a hasty decision, taken without appreciating all the;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Citing absence of recital to “public interest”, the peion faults the notification for causing prejudice and inconvenience to the public at;br/gt;lt;br/gt;This is an important ground of challenge, because the notification suffers from its inherent potential to violate the fundamental right (under article 19(1)(g)) to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, because of the suddenness of its timing and its resultant consequences. It cannot be claimed even by the government that only those with black money, fake currency notes or an intent to aid terrorism are bound to suffer because of the;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The government, of course, would rely on article 19(6), which says that nothing in article 19(1)(g) shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it prevents the state from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred by the;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Alvi’s peion, therefore, argues that the exception of article 19(6) is not available to the central government as the notification is beyond “police powers”. The grounds cited cannot justify the adoption of extreme measures like invalidating 86% of printed currency in circulation overnight, the peion;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The peion argues that issuing Rs 2000 currency notes clearly shows that it has no rational nexus with the object, sought to be achieved by the;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Arguing that public inconvenience itself is a ground to set aside the notification, the peion alleges that the central government has not considered the current rate of inflation and the low minimum wage, which “affects everyone most severely”.lt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The RBI and the central governmentlt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The fourth contention of the peion is that the central board of the RBI did not give a recommendation independently after detailed consideration of all the issues, although the same was elicited by the central government. The RBI Act, the peion says, uses the phrase “recommendation” and not “consultation”, and therefore a recommendation from the RBI cannot emanate from the central government itself, Alvi’s peion has;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Alvi’s peion also raises the larger issue of the relationship between the central government and the RBI, which it says ought to have been maintained at an “arm’s distance”. By implication, it would mean that the central government must not just “consult” the RBI, but give it sufficient scope to deliberate and offer its independent views through a well-reasoned recommendation, initiated by itself rather than by prompting. To discharge its role as a central bank in a financial system, the RBI is umed to be insulated from executive and political influences and is required to act independently, the peion;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The peion says that the RBI is under an obligation, before making such a recommendation, to consult the public and the stakeholders on the issue. The doctrine of “legitimate expectations” in a modern democracy would require the RBI to adopt such a course, the peion suggests. While the RBI can work like parens patriae, it cannot function like a patriarch, the peion;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The peion, therefore, requests the court to call for the complete record of the consultation before the central board of the RBI and consider whether in fact there has been effective consultation in the manner contemplated under the;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Section 26 of the RBI Act, it argues, clearly contemplates a distinction between the central board of the RBI and the central government, and implies that the decision making process of the RBI has to be independent. The peion thus wonders whether the central board has considered all the relevant materials and the likely consequences before it made its recommendation to the central;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Another interesting legal question the peion has raised is whether the government can withdraw, alter or restrict the promise made by the RBI governor on the bank notes to the effect, “I promise to pay the bearer the sum of five hundred/one thousand rupees”, thereby seeking to go back on the;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The central government and the RBI have an obligation to bring on record the minutes of the meetings leading to recommendation from the very inception for scrutiny by the Supreme Court, the peion has submitted. The central government cannot prevent judicial review by hiding behind the cloak of a policy decision, it;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Test of reasonablenesslt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Fifth, the peion points to an interesting correlation between reasonableness of a legislation or an executive decision and its immediate effect, as held by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered by the consution bench in 1954. (Saghir Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh.)lt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;Although the Supreme Court’s judgment pointing to such correlation was rendered in the context of a legislation, the peion argues that “the test that applies to legislation would apply more vigorously to executive decisions within the precincts of a statute”.lt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;As examples of the immediate effects, the peion cites the central government’s failure to grant exemption to essential services such as all hospitals (including private), doctors, lawyers, court houses and so on from the demonetisation, and claims that impacts the exercise of the fundamental right to health and access to;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The government’s and RBI’s responses to each of these five legal contentions will be of wide interest.
  5. N
    Niladri Bose
    Dec 2, 2016 at 12:35 pm
    The Hon'ble Supreme Court appropriately asked the Central govt to ease the sufferings and inconvenience of people in rural areas. lt;br/gt;The demonetisation will damage both the rural and urban economy over the long;br/gt;Since the matter is still subjudice one should not make comments to influence the judiciary. Hence I disapprove of the way some of BJP supporters are ping comments on this issue in various forums. This is contempt of Court.
  6. R
    Rampal Yadav
    Dec 2, 2016 at 10:31 am
    Sirf Time p hai...
  7. R
    Dec 2, 2016 at 10:28 am
    What is going to happen?? Situation created by Govt, with no idea of turmoil it is going to cause. Now they are saying situation will improve, today is second day i have been trying to get money from ATM with no success??
  8. V
    Dec 2, 2016 at 10:34 am
    People in influential position in rural banks and cooperative banks will use the banking system to clear their black money in the name of farmers. Now most the black money is left with people with big stocks of currency, they will instigate people and try to make noise level.
  9. Load More Comments