Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme 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                                      

 

Latest Legal News