Supreme Court To Examine Interim Relief Measures Against Demonetisation
Expect Rs 13 lakh crore worth of cash deposits by year-end, government tells Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has framed broad discussion points which will be deliberated upon during subsequent hearings on the government’s plea seeking to transfer all proceedings on demonetisation to the apex court or one of the high courts.
The next hearing is scheduled for December 14.
On an immediate and urgent basis the court will examine two interim measures – a) whether district co-operative banks can be allowed to accept cash deposits, and b) whether the government should consider fixing an assured minimum withdrawal limit in banks.
Attorney General of India Mukul Rohatgi objected to granting exemptions to district co-operative banks saying that verification of money coming into such banks is not possible as these accounts are not KYC compliant.
There is serious apprehension as to whose money will come into these societies (district co-operative banks). The farmers or those who manage these societies?Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney General of India
‘Lack Of ATMs A Concerns’
Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram, appearing for one of the petitioners, raised the issue of access to automated teller machines. He pointed out that 13 states and seven Union Territories alone house 10 percent of India’s ATMs.
Chidambaram said that the situation is serious in the north-east, where barring Assam, the remaining six states have only 1,500 machines.
The government informed the court that cash deposits worth Rs 11.5-12 lakh crore has come back into the banking system, and another Rs 1 lakh crore may come in by the year-end. The Centre had originally estimated the amount that would be deposited in the banking system at Rs 10-11 lakh crore.
Rohatgi also said that new currency worth Rs 4 lakh crore has been printed, out of which Rs 3.5 lakh crore has been disbursed to the banks.
Demonetisation And The Apex Court: A Timeline
November 8: Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced on national television the move to demonetise currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 as a move to eradicate terror funding and unearth black money from the country.
November 9: Uttar Pradesh-based lawyer Sangam Lal Pandey and New Delhi-based lawyer Vivek Narayan Sharma filed two public interest litigations against the decision in the Supreme Court. Pandey termed the decision as a “Tughlaqi farman” and said such decisions cannot be taken overnight without prior notice.
November 14: Supreme Court agreed to consider the two PILs.
November 15: The Supreme Court refused to stay the demonetisation exercise but directed the government to submit a report detailing the steps taken to minimise public inconvenience.
The whole exercise is done with a three-fold agenda which includes doing away with fake notes and curbing black money. We are issuing notifications every day to increase the withdrawal limit so that there is no inconvenience. We had to put limits so that the first few who come to the banks do not take away all the money.Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi’s Argument In The Supreme Court
November 17: The Supreme Court agreed to hear a fresh plea by the Centre seeking all proceedings on demonetisation to be transfered to the apex court or a single high court. The Centre said that simultaneous proceedings on the issue in various courts will create confusion.
November 18: The Supreme Court refused to restrain high courts and other lower courts from hearing pleas against the demonetisation notification, saying that there are difficulties which cannot be disputed.
People are approaching various courts because they face real problems.Bench Headed By Chief Justice of India TS Thakur And Justice Anil Dave.
November 23: The Supreme Court sought responses from all petitioners who have challenged the government’s demonetisation drive in various courts.
November 24: The Modi government asserted in the Supreme Court that the ‘bold move’ of demonetisation would eradicate black money and slush funds operating since Independence which cast a ‘parallel economy’ hitting the poor and the middle class.