A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court to review the judgment upholding the Centre’s 2016 decision of demonetisation.
Petitioner advocate ML Sharma is one of the 58 petitioners who challenged the demonetisation of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 notes.
Advocate Sharma contended that the Constitution Bench did not consider his “written arguments” in its verdict and the omission had led to “serious injustice and miscarriage of justice”.
On January 2, 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Union government to demonetise currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 denominations in 2016.
The November 8, 2016, ruling was upheld by a five-judge Constitution Bench, which was headed by Justice S Abdul Nazeer (now retired), by a vote of 4:1. The judges also ruled that “courts can’t sit in judgement over such matters of economic policy.” It had stated that the decision-making process was neither flawed nor hasty.
However, Justice BV Nagarathna dissented from the decision because she thought the demonetisation process was flawed.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) made no independent decision in recommending the cancellation of all Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes, as proposed by the central government, she said, adding, “Parliament is a miniature of the country…. Parliament, which is the centre of democracy, cannot be left aloof in a matter of such critical importance.”
While dismissing a number of petitions challenging the note ban, the Supreme Court stated that the decision could not be faulted solely because it was initiated by the Centre Government.
