Page 251 - Supreme Court

What does the SC's demonetisation verdict mean

Six years after the govt demonetised 86% of cash in circulation, the Supreme Court on Monday nixed petitions challenging the move and upheld its legality. So what did the court say in its verdict?

SC upholds 2016 decision on demonetisation by 4:1 majority verdict

Dissenting judge Nagarathna says 2016 note ban legally flawed

Welcome Supreme Court judgement on demonetisation: FM Nirmala Sitharaman

Finance Minister Niramala Sitharaman on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court judgement upholding the decision of the Modi government to demonetise high value currency notes in November 2016. On November 8, 2016 Prime Minister Narendra Modi had announced demonetisation of old Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 banknotes and one of the key objectives of the unprecedented decision was to promote digital payments and curb black money flows. "Welcome the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement today on Demonetization. A five-judge Constitution Bench (via a 4-1 majority) has upheld the Demonetization after carefully examining the issue & has dismissed several petitions challenging the decision," Sitharaman said in a series of tweets. "There were consultations between the Centre & RBI for a period of 6 months. There is a reasonable nexus to bring such a measure & it satisfies the test of proportionality. Decision-making process cannot be faulted merely because the proposal emanated from the Centre," she

The real debate

Demonetisation matter had limited relevance

Centre empowered to demonetise 'all' series of bank notes under RBI Act: SC

The Supreme Court said on Monday the Centre is empowered to demonetise 'all' series of bank notes under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice S A Nazeer, which upheld the Centre's 2016 demonetisation of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 currency notes by a 4:1 majority verdict, said a statute must be construed having regard to the legislative intent. "The power available to the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act cannot be restricted to mean that it can be exercised only for one' or some' series of bank notes and not for all' series of bank notes. "The power can be exercised for all series of bank notes. Merely because on two earlier occasions, the demonetisation exercise was by plenary legislation, it cannot be held that such a power would not be available to the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act," the bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai, A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, ...

SC refuses to hear plea seeking SOP for Indians travelling to abroad

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea of a man, who was earlier detained illegally in the UAE over mistaken identity, seeking framing of guidelines to ensure the safety of Indians in foreign countries. Refusing to lay down standard operating procedures (SOP) for Indians' safety in offshore nations, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha, however, acknowledged the ordeal of detention faced by Noida-based businessman Praveen Kumar. Kumar was detained at the Abu Dhabi airport as his face allegedly matched with a wanted criminal in a face recognition software on October 11 last year and had to remain in illegal detention for almost four days. How can we ask the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to frame the standard operating procedures (SOP)? We have Indian embassies for such purposes... a person will be governed by the law of a particular country, the bench said. We cannot direct the MEA to frame guidelines. Thousands of Indians

SC verdict upholds demonetisation process: A timeline of note ban case

The Supreme Court in a 4:1 majority verdict on Monday upheld the government's 2016 decision to demonetise Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 denomination notes and said the decision-making process was not flawed. Following is a timeline of events in the case: November 8, 2016: Prime Minister Narendra Modi addresses nation and announces demonetisation of high-value currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1000. November 9, 2016: Plea filed in Supreme Court challenging decision. December 16, 2016: Bench headed by then chief justice T S Thakur refers question of validity of the decision and other questions to a larger bench of five judges for authoritative pronouncement. August 11, 2017: Unusual deposits of Rs 1.7 lakh crore during demonetisation, says RBI paper. In nominal terms, excess deposits accrued to the banking system due to demonetisation estimated in the range of Rs 2.8-4.3 lakh crore, it says. July 23, 2017: Massive searches, seizures and surveys by Income Tax department over the last three year

To say demonetisation was upheld is misleading: Congress on SC verdict

Congress while reacting to the SC judgement on demonetisation said the court only pronounced its verdict on whether Section 26(2) of the RBI Act, 1934 was correctly applied or not

Slap on the wrist of govt: P Chidambaram on SC's demonetisation verdict

Former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram on Monday said the majority verdict by the Supreme Court has steered clear of the question whether the objectives of the demonetisation exercise were achieved at all. The 'minority' judgement pointed out the 'illegality' and the 'irregularities' in the demonetisation, Chidambaram said on Monday soon after the apex court made its verdict. "Once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared the law, we are obliged to accept it. However, it is necessary to point out that the majority has not upheld the wisdom of the decision; nor has the majority concluded that the stated objectives were achieved," the senior Congress leader said in a tweet. "In fact the majority has steered clear of the question whether the objectives were achieved at all," he said. "We are happy that the minority judgement has pointed out the illegality and the irregularities in the demonetisation. It may be only a slap on the wrist of the government, but a welcome slap on the ..

SC to hear UP's plea on HC order on local body polls' notification on Jan 4

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear on January 4 the Uttar Pradesh government's appeal challenging an Allahabad High Court order quashing its draft notification on urban local body elections and directing it to hold the polls without reservation for other backward classes. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha took note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, saying the matter needed an urgent hearing. "We will take it the day after tomorrow," the bench said. The state government in its appeal against the December 27 order has said the high court cannot quash the December 5 draft notification which provides for reservation of seats in the urban body polls for other backward classes (OBCs) apart from those for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and women. The appeal, filed through advocate on record Ruchira Goel, said OBCs are a constitutionally protected section and the high court erred in

SC upholds demonetisation, says test of proportionality satisfied

Action cannot be struck down on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality, says Supreme Court

SC to pronounce verdict on pleas against demonetisation on Monday

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce its judgment on Monday on a batch of pleas challenging the government's 2016 decision to demonetise currency notes of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 denominations. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice S A Nazeer, who will retire on January 4, is likely to pronounce its verdict on the matter on January 2, when the top court will reopen after its winter break. According to Monday's cause list of the top court, there will be two separate judgements in the matter, which will be pronounced by Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna. It is not clear whether the two judgements will be concurring or dissenting. Besides Justices Nazeer, Gavai and Nagarathna, the other members of the five-judge bench are Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian. The top court had, on December 7, directed the Centre and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to put on record the relevant records relating to the government's 2016 decision and reserved its verdict. It hea

Portal of filing online appearance slips in SC to be activated from Jan 2

In a bid to facilitate the procedure of marking appearances of advocates, the Supreme Court has developed an online module which will be activated from January 2. Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, had on December 16, announced that from New Year, lawyers would not be required to file appearance slips manually, but would log into 'Advocate Appearance Portal' to mark their presence. Presently, advocates write their names along with details like the case and its serial number on a prescribed paper form, to mark their presence in a hearing to ensure that their names get reflected in the court orders or judgements. A notice, uploaded on the apex court's website, regarding activation of portal of filing online appearance slips said that the Advocates-on-Record (AoR) may mark the appearances of lawyers appearing in the court through the link provided on the top court website and on its official mobile application. "The said facility shall be available for the duration spanning from

EPFO implements SC order, gives option for higher pension to those eligible

Retirement fund body EPFO has asked its field offices to provide an option for higher pension to eligible subscribers in accordance with the Supreme Court order on November 4, 2022. According to the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) circular on December 29, 2022 the central government has directed to implement the directions in the Supreme Court order. The field offices have been directed to implement "the directions contained in para 44 (ix) of the Supreme Court judgement on November 4, 2022" within stipulated timeline and to ensure adequate publicity of the decision taken by the EPFO to implement the said directions, the circular said. Earlier in November 2022, the Supreme Court had upheld Employees Pension (Amendment) Scheme 2014. The EPS amendment of August 22, 2014 had raised the pensionable salary cap to Rs 15,000 a month from Rs 6,500 a month, and allowed members along with their employers to contribute 8.33 per cent on their actual salaries (if it exceeded the ca

Form special units to facilitate motor accident claims: SC to states

The Supreme Court has directed the states to constitute a special unit in police stations within three months to investigate and facilitate motor accident claim cases. Issuing a slew of directions, the top court said on receiving intimation about a road accident by a motor vehicle at a public place, the SHO concerned shall take steps as per Section 159 of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act under which an Accident Information Report is to be filed to the Claims Tribunal within three months by the police. "In our view, the head of the Home Department of the State and the Director General of Police in all States/Union Territories shall ensure the compliance of the Rules by constituting a special unit in the police stations or at least at town level to investigate and facilitate the motor accident claim cases. The said action must be ensured within a period of three months," a bench of Justices S A Nazeer and J K Maheshwari said. The top court said after registering the FIR, the ...

Defending the constitutional order

In the changed political environment, India needs a process that maintains the independence and credibility of institutions

SC notice to govt on plea alleging violation in Polavaram project clearance

The Supreme Court has sought the response of the Centre and others on a plea alleging violations in environmental clearance granted to the Polavaram multi-purpose irrigation project. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M M Sundresh issued notices to the Centre, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Odisha while seeking their replies. "Issue notice, returnable in the month of February, 2023," the bench said. The top court was hearing a plea filed by economist Pentapati Pullarao against an order of the National Green Tribunal which directed him to approach the apex court with his plea. The petition filed through advocate Sravan Kumar alleged that the NGT, without considering the report of the Joint Committee of the Ministry of Environment and forests, Ministry of Jal Shakti, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and the Polavaram Project Authority (Project Proponent), has abruptly closed the case. "It is the submission of the appellant that the allegations pertaining to violations

US SC keeps pandemic-era immigration limits in place indefinitely

The Supreme Court is keeping pandemic-era limits on immigration in place indefinitely, dashing hopes of immigration advocates who had been anticipating their end this week. In a ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court extended a temporary stay that Chief Justice John Roberts issued last week. Under the court's order, the case will be argued in February and the stay will be maintained until the justices decide the case. The limits were put in place under then-President Donald Trump at the beginning of the pandemic. Under the restrictions, officials have expelled asylum-seekers inside the United States 2.5 million times and turned away most people who requested asylum at the border on grounds of preventing the spread of COVID-19. The restrictions are often referred to as Title 42 in reference to a 1944 public health law. "We are deeply disappointed for all the desperate asylum seekers who will continue to suffer because of Title 42, but we will continue fighting to eventually end the policy

Jairam Ramesh to move SC against BJP MP Pragya Thakur over 'hate speech'

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Tuesday said BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur's remarks at a function in Karnataka's Shivamogga are a clear example of hate speech and he would move the Supreme Court against her. Ramesh said he would file a case against Thakur in the apex court as the police in Karnataka would not act against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP. Karnataka is currently being ruled by the BJP and the Assembly polls are due in the state early next year. "BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur's remarks made in Karnataka are a clear example of hate speech and I would be moving the Supreme Court against her for making such remarks," the former Union minister told PTI. He said Thakur's remarks clearly seek to divide the society, while claiming that the local police would not act against her since the BJP is in power in the southern state. Thakur said Hindus have the right to respond to those who attack them and their dignity as she spoke about the killing of Hindu activists. She also cal

SC to hear PILs challenging laws which regulates religious conversions

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on January 2 a batch of pleas challenging controversial state laws regulating religious conversions due to interfaith marriage. A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha is scheduled to hear the PILs filed by advocate Vishal Thakre and an NGO 'Citizens for Justice and Peace'. The Supreme Court will also hear a plea by Muslim body 'Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind' which it had allowed last year to become a party to the petitions as it claimed a large number of Muslims are being harassed under these laws across the country. As per the office report uploaded on the apex court website, so far no reply has been filed by the Centre or any of the states which have been made parties to the litigation. On February 17, 2021, the top court had permitted the NGO to make Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh the parties to its pending petition by which it had challenged some controversial state laws regulating conversions due to interfaith ...