Cannot flex extraordinary powers to help those who missed opportunity to exchange demonetised notes in 2016: Supreme Court

The court however observed that the grievances of these people may be genuine

March 21, 2023 02:09 pm | Updated 02:09 pm IST - NEW DELHI

Representational file image of a person seen depositing the old 500 notes.

Representational file image of a person seen depositing the old 500 notes. | Photo Credit: R.V. Moorthy

The Supreme Court on March 21 refused to intervene on behalf of individuals who could not exchange their demonetised currency for valid bank notes in 2016.

Two months after a Constitution Bench delivered a majority verdict upholding the Narendra Modi government's demonetisation policy, the court said it cannot flex its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to help persons who missed the opportunity to trade their demonetised ₹ 500 and ₹ 1000 bills for the new bank notes.

The court however observed that the grievances of these people may be genuine.

The Bench led by Justice BR Gavai, who had authored the majority opinion for the Constitution Bench in January, directed the aggrieved petitioners and other affected persons to approach the Centre for reprieve.

The court said the government should decide their representations within 12 weeks of receiving them. Those unhappy with the government's decision on their representation could move the jurisdictional high court.

On January 2, a majority of four judges on the Constitution Bench had found no flaw in the government’s process to demonetise ₹500 and ₹ 1000 banknotes through a gazette notification issued on November 8, 2016.

The sole woman judge, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, on the five-member Bench however disagreed with the majority, saying the government’s notification issued under Section 26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Act was unlawful.

But Justice Gavai, delivering the judgment for the majority which included Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, AS Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, had said the statutory procedure under Section 26(2) was not violated merely because the Centre had taken the initiative to “advise” the Central Board to consider recommending demonetisation. The government was empowered under the provision to demonetise “all series” of banknotes.

Differing, Justice Nagarathna had noted that the government could issue a notification under Section 26(2) only if the Central Board of the RBI had initiated the proposal to demonetise a specified series of banknotes by way of a recommendation. Here, in 2016, the government had initiated the demonetisation, not the Central Board.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.