New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it is aware of the “Lakshman Rekha” of judicial review of policy decisions of the government, but will examine the 2016 demonetization verdict to find that the matter is only “academic”. ‘ It was not an exercise.
Justice S. A five-member bench headed by Abdul Nazeer said that when a matter is brought before a Constitution Bench, it becomes the duty of the Bench to respond. Along with this, the Constitution Bench directed the Central Government and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to file detailed affidavits on the petitions challenging the decision to ban Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes.
In the Constitution Bench, Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice A. s. Bopanna, Justice V. Ramasubramaniam, and Justice B. V. Nagarathna were also involved. Attorney General R. Venkataramani said that unless the Act relating to demonetization is challenged in proper perspective, the issue will essentially remain academic. The High-Value Bank Notes (Demonetization) Act was passed in 1978 to demonetize certain high-denomination banknotes in the public interest and to check the illegal transfer of money harmful to the economy.
The top court said the matter needs to be examined to declare the exercise academic or fruitless as both parties are not agreeable. The Constitution Bench said, “In order to answer the aspect of whether this exercise is academic or not or is outside the scope of judicial review, we have to hear it. The policy of the government and its wisdom is one aspect of the matter.” The bench further said, “We always know where the Lakshman Rekha is, but the way it was done, it has to be investigated. We will have to hear the lawyer decide that.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the court’s time should not be “wasted” on academic issues. Objecting to Mehta’s contention, senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for petitioner Vivek Narayan Sharma, said he was surprised by words like “waste of time of the Constitutional Bench” as the previous bench had said that these matters should not be taken up. should be placed before a Constitution Bench. Senior advocate P. Chidambaram, appearing for another side, said the issue is not academic and it is for the top court to decide.
He said such demonetization required a separate Act from Parliament. The top court has fixed November 9, 2022, for the next hearing of the matter. A bench headed by the then Chief Justice TS Thakur had on December 16, 2016, referred questions related to the validity of the demonetization decision and other issues to a five-judge constitution bench.
The three-judge bench had then held that while holding that the 2016 notification was issued legitimately under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the question was whether it was contrary to Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Article 300(a) states that no person shall be deprived of his property which is legally secure.
Referring to one issue, the bench had said, “Is there any basis in law for the limitation of withdrawal of cash from deposits in bank accounts, and is it violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21?” Article 14 provides for equality before the law, while Article 19 deals with freedom of speech and expression and Article 21 deals with fundamental rights to the protection of life and personal liberty.
