SC to consider on 12 October pleas challenging Centre's 2016 decision on demonetisation
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will examine if the challenge to the Centre's 2016 demonetisation decision has become academic and posted the matter for consideration on 12 October.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will examine if the challenge to the Centre’s 2016 demonetisation decision has become academic and posted the matter for consideration on 12 October.
As the hearing commenced, a constitution bench headed by Justice S A Nazeer wondered if the matter survives for consideration at this stage.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, submitted that for all practical purposes the matter does not survive for consideration. However, the case can be examined as an academic exercise, he said.
Responding to the submission, the bench said, A five-judge bench for academic exercise when we are already burdened with such a large amount of pendency.
We will fix it for hearing on October 12. We will examine if it has become academic and if it can be heard at all, the bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and B V Nagarathna said.
The top court was hearing a batch of 58 petitions challenging the Centre’s November 8, 2016 decision to demonetise currency notes of denomination of Rs 500 and Rs 1000.
On 16 December, 2016, a bench headed by then Chief Justice TS Thakur referred the question of the validity of the decision and other questions to a larger bench of five judges for authoritative pronouncement.
It had framed various questions in the reference order to be adjudicated by the five-judge bench which includes whether the notification dated 8 November, 2016, is ultra vires provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and does the notification contravene the provisions of Article 300 (A) of the Constitution.
The three-judge bench had then said that assuming that the 2016 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.
“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”, the bench had said.
It had said 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.
The top court had framed various other questions and said that keeping in view the “general public importance” and the “far-reaching implications” which the answers to the questions may have, “we consider it proper to direct that the matters be placed before the larger bench of five judges for an authoritative pronouncement”.
Prashant Bhushan contempt case: 'Show remorse,' says court; tweets expressed my bonafide belief, argues lawyer
Prashant Bhushan told SC that he did not tweet in 'absence mindedness' and it would be insincere and contemptuous on his part to offer an apology for the tweets that expressed what was and continues to be his bona fide belief
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on 31 October a plea seeking to establish special anti-corruption courts in every district to decide cases related to various economic offences like money laundering and tax evasion within one year.
The decision came days after Centre issued regulations for social media firms, making it mandatory for them to identify originators of messages that threaten India’s security and sovereignty