Demonetisation Grievances: Supreme Court Declines Relief to Petitioners

Demonetisation Grievances: Supreme Court Declines Relief to Petitioners

The Supreme Court refused to grant relief to petitioners with grievances about the Centre's 2016 demonetisation decision.

(Photo: Altered by The Quint)

The Supreme Court refused to grant relief to petitioners with grievances about the Centre's 2016 demonetisation decision.

Yes, but: "If the petitioners so desired, they would be at liberty to make a representation to the Union of India to consider their individual grievances," the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, 21 March.

• A timeline of 12 weeks was given for the Centre to dispose of their representations

• If the petitioners were not satisfied with the Centre's ruling, the apex court left the door open for them to approach the high courts

• The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath

In the courtroom: Alleging that the Centre's move to demonetise Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes overnight had led to hardships, the petitioners' counsel urged the apex court to hear their pleas individually, LiveLaw reported.

• Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan was appearing for a widow who was unable to exchange her husband's savings because she had missed the deadline to do so.

• “Why should such people be made to suffer?” he questioned

• “The Constitution Bench has upheld the law. Genuine hardships may be caused, but merely that cannot be a ground for this court to interfere. These requests are for the government to examine," Justice Gavai said

The backstory: Three months ago, the Centre's demonetisation decision was upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.

• The judgment was delivered after hearing 58 petitions against demonetisation

• The Centre’s notification and the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, was ruled to be legally valid by a majority of the Bench

Solo dissent: However, Justice Nagarathna said that although demonetisation was well-intentioned, it had to be declared unlawful on purely legal grounds.

(With inputs from LiveLaw.)