The demonetization of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 currency notes done by the Indian Government with effect from the midnight of 8th November 2016 was challenged in the Supreme Court of India by various petitions. The matters were heard on 16th December 2016 by a bench of three judges : Justice T.S.Thakur (CJI), Justice A.M.Khanwilkar and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud. After hearing, the Bench framed nine questions and referred the same to be decided by larger bench of five Judges. The questions to be decided by larger bench, as framed by said three judges bench, are :
“(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.”
The Court declined to pass any interim orders.
The Central Government had filed Transfer Petitions for withdrawing all Writ Petitions /proceedings pending in the various High Courts across the country and to hear those cases along with the Writ Petitions pending in Supreme Court. On this aspect, the Court held :
“In our opinion, it would be just and proper to withdraw all the Writ Petitions/proceedings pending in different High Courts across the country and to be heard by this Court along with the Writ Petitions which are already pending in this Court raising same or similar issues, to avoid multiplicity of hearing and conflicting decisions on the same subject matter. Accordingly, we issue notice in the respective Transfer Petitions and by way of interim direction, stay the further proceedings of the Writ Petitions/proceedings in the concerned High Court.”
The leading case for this batch of matters is ‘Vivek Narayan Sharma vs Union of India’ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 906/2016.
Click for Full text of Order dated 16th December 2016.
