Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |    

Supreme Court Upholds Demonetization, Rejects Challenges on Constitutional Grounds

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment pronounced on January 2, 2023, the Supreme Court of India upheld the legality of demonetization and rejected the challenges raised on constitutional grounds. The judgment, delivered by a bench of four judges, provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal aspects surrounding the demonetization exercise conducted by the Central Government in 2016. The Court answered several reference questions and addressed the validity of the impugned notification, the power of the Central Government, and the role of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

In a notable quote from the judgment, the Court stated, "The power available to the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act can be exercised for all series of bank notes and is not restricted to specific series only." This clarification dismisses the argument that the power of demonetization could only be exercised for certain denominations or series of banknotes.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the provision in sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act does not amount to excessive delegation since it includes an inbuilt safeguard requiring the exercise of power on the recommendation of the Central Board. This reasoning led the Court to conclude that sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act is not liable to be struck down on the ground of excessive delegation.

The judgment also addressed the question of whether the impugned notification suffered from flaws in the decision-making process. The Court found no such flaws, affirming the validity of the notification dated 8th November 2016.

Importantly, the Court considered the principle of proportionality and concluded that the impugned notification did not violate this principle. The Court emphasized that the demonetization exercise was aimed at curbing the circulation of fake currency, black money, drug trafficking, and terror financing, all of which are of significant social importance.

Addressing the contention regarding the period provided for the exchange of notes, the Court held that the period mentioned in the impugned notification was not unreasonable. It compared the 52-day period allowed for the exchange of demonetized notes in 2016 with the three-day period allowed in a previous demonetization exercise, finding the former to be reasonable.

The Court also dismissed the argument that the RBI possessed independent power under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the 2017 Act to accept demonetized notes beyond the specified period mentioned in notifications issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4. The Court clarified that Section 4 of the 2017 Act provides an integrated scheme, and sub-section (2) cannot be read independently.

In response to the suggestion of framing a scheme or providing a window for genuine cases to exchange demonetized notes, the Court held that it would be encroaching upon areas reserved for experts and that it is within the discretion of the Central Government to consider such matters, rather than the Court issuing a judicial mandate.

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has provided clarity on the legality of demonetization and upheld the power of the Central Government in exercising demonetization for all series of bank notes. The Court's decision reaffirms the importance of addressing issues related to black money, fake currency, drug trafficking, and terror financing in the larger public interest.

Date of Decision: January 2, 2023

VIVEK NARAYAN SHARMA  vs UNION OF INDIA                                      

 

Similar News