A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and BV Nagarathna heard a batch of pleas opposing the demonetisation policy for the second day today, Friday, November 25. On day two of the hearing, Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani arguing for the government, said that there is barely any scope to scrutinise the demonetisation policy as it can hardly be canvassed that demonetisation failed. The apex court had earlier held a preliminary hearing on October 12. On Thursday, November 24, senior advocate and four-time finance minister P Chidambaram argued that the demonetisation policy was unconstitutional, and questioned the scope of Section 26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Act.
“Fake currencies and black money are enemies that cannot be easily identified, as they are behind masks. The quantum may not be as important as the fact that it is being extricated. We are not looking at random black money and fake currency. We are trying to look at the big picture,” Venkatramani said. He also added that demonetisation was not an ‘isolated economic policy’ but a ‘complex monetary policy’.
Taking the court through the preamble of the RBI Act, the AG also said, “No well-meaning person will say that just because you have failed, your intention was also flawed. This does not make logical sense.”
The AG spoke about the various provisions of the RBI Act, with a special focus on Section 26(2). This Section, which states that the Union government may issue a notification in the Gazette and declare demonetisation of ‘any series of bank notes of any denomination’ from a particular date based on the ‘recommendation of the central board of the RBI’, was challenged by advocate Chidambaram.