 and Sections 7, 17, 23, 24, 29 and 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and other legal tenets.){kind=link}
Another Interlocutory Application has been allowed by the Supreme Court to be included into the main application in the Vivek Narayan Sharma versus Union of India case which deals with the events during demonetisation and if one critical government notification – of November 8, 2016 – on that fateful day was ultra vires of Section 26(2) and Sections 7, 17, 23, 24, 29 and 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and other legal tenets.
The apex court bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao on Wednesday (March 28) in its order noted that the IA filed by the petitioner is to be listed and heard along with the main matter which is before the constitutional bench.
The petition is also asks that assuming that the notification has been validly issued under the RBI Act, 1934, whether it is ultra vires to Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution; whether the limit on withdrawal of cash from the funds deposited in bank accounts has no basis in law and violates Articles 14,19 and 21; whether the implementation of the impugned notification(s) suffers from procedural and/or substantive unreasonableness and thereby violates Articles 14 and 19 and, if so, to what effect?
The petition also asks that in the event that Section 26(2) is held to permit demonetization, does it suffer from excessive delegation of legislative power thereby rendering it ultra vires the Constitution? It also asks what the scope of judicial review is in matters relating to fiscal and economic policy of the government.
It asks whether a petition by a political party on the issues raised is maintainable under Article 32; and Whether District Co-operative Banks have been discriminated against by excluding them from accepting deposits and exchanging demonetized notes.
– India Legal Bureau
Comments are closed.