Lagatar24 Desk
New Delhi, Nov 17: The Union Finance Ministry notified the Supreme Court that the decision to outlaw the 500- and 1000-rupee currency notes in 2016 was made in conjunction with the Reserve Bank of India and subsequently supported by Parliament.
The Central government further underlined the subsequent benefits of the decision in its most recent affidavit provided before the Constitution Bench hearing the petitions to the 2016 demonetisation exercise.
- Reduction in number and value of fake currency notes pursuant to detection in banks and seizure by authorities
- Manifold increase in digital payments, from 1.09 lakh transactions worth Rs 6952 crores in 2016 to 730 crore transactions worth Rs 12 lakh crores in October 2022 alone
- Increase in number of PAN applications, tax returns and tax-payers as a result of income tax authorities detecting the deposits in bank accounts at the time
- Increased enrollment with the Employees Provident Fund Organisation and the Employees State Insurance Corporation
A group of petitions opposing the action are currently being heard by a Supreme Court Constitution Bench chaired by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, focusing on the following legal issues:
- Whether the notification of November 8 is ultra vires Section 26(2) and Sections 7, 23, 24, 29 and 42 of the RBI Act?
- Whether the notification of November 8 and all subsequent notifications is contrary to Article 300(A) of the Constitution?
- Assuming that the notifications have been issued validly under S. 26(2), whether it falls foul of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)?
- Whether restrictions on withdrawal of money has any basis and whether it violates Articles 14, 19 and 21?
- 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?
- 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?
- What is the scope of judicial review in a matter touching fiscal/economic policy?
- Whether a petition by political party on the issue is maintainable under Article 32?
- Whether District Co-operative Banks have been discriminated against by excluding them from accepting deposits, exchanging old notes and denying withdrawal of money?
(Courtesy: Bar and Bench)
