E-Paper
‘Embarrassing’: SC pulls up govt for not filing affidavit yet on demonitisation
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for one of the petitioners, said it has never been an accepted practice to seek deferment of proceedings before a constitution bench.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned until November 24 the scrutiny of the decision-making process behind the 2016 demonetisation policy after the Centre failed to file its affidavit explaining its procedural and legal aspects even as lawyers for the petitioners argued against the plea for deferment of proceedings before a constitution bench, saying it has never been an accepted practice.
Over three dozen petitions have been filed against the Centre’s November 8, 2016, move to take currency notes of ₹500 and ₹1,000 denominations out of circulation. The pleas have called the move violative of fundamental rights and contrary to the law laid down under the Reserve Bank of India (RBI)Act, 1934.
Attorney General R Venkataramani pleaded for more time to file the Centre’s affidavit. He expressed his regrets for seeking an adjournment of the proceedings.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for one of the petitioners, opposed this plea, contending it has never been an accepted practice to seek deferment of proceedings before a constitution bench. Divan said the petitioners should be allowed to argue while the government and RBI may take their own time to file the affidavits.
When asked by the court for his views on Venkataramani‘s request, senior advocate P Chidambaram, representing another petitioner, called the situation “embarrassing” and left the decision to the wisdom of the court.
At this point, justice BV Nagarathna remarked: “Normally a constitution bench never adjourns like this. We never rise like this. It is very embarrassing for the court also.” To this, Venkataramani said that it is embarrassing for him also to seek the adjournment.
The court then deferred the proceedings, making it clear the government and RBI must submit their affidavits within a week.
On October 12, the court said it is completely mindful of the “Lakshman rekha” in the matters of economic policies as it set about to examine the process. It directed the Centre and the RBI to submit comprehensive affidavits.
The five-judge constitution bench turned down the government’s plea to shut the proceedings by declaring it infructuous and an academic exercise. The bench said it is a serious matter which will require detailed replies from the Centre and RBI on the legality of the procedure adopted for the denomination.
The bench, headed by Justice SA Nazeer, also asked the government to keep ready the confidential files relating to the exercise conducted before Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced his government’s demonetisation drive.
The court asked Venkataramani to keep the agenda documents and decision papers handy to show the correspondence between the government and RBI between November 7, 2016, and November 8, 2016.
The government argued the top court should not embroil itself in an exercise that could end up as an academic activity or a mere declaration of an academic lesson.
The bench, which also includes justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, and V Ramasubramanian, emphasised that one of the pivotal duties of a constitution bench is to declare the law for all times to come.
“Any declaration by a constitution bench, one way or the other, is for posterity. It is the duty of a constitution bench to answer when issues are referred to it.”
A three-judge bench in December 2016 referred the matter to the larger bench after framing nine questions. The questions included whether the demonetisation violated fundamental rights relating to equality, life and liberty, property, and the freedom to carry out profession and trade. It also sought to scrutinise the legality of the demonetisation notification on the anvils of the 1934 Act, besides examining whether the procedure adopted was fair.
