Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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