<p>The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine the constitutional validity of the government’s November 8 decision to demonetise high-value notes. <br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice D Y Chandrachud posted the matter for hearing on December 2.<br /><br />The court will also consider on that day the Centre’s plea to transfer petitions filed before various high courts to one high court or the Supreme Court.<br /><br />Senior advocate Kapil Sibal urged the court to hear the petitions earlier, on November 29. He said people were starving and farmers unable to begin sowing because of a severe cash crunch.<br /><br />“There are two issues — one is constitutionality and the other about the inconvenience being faced by the people. You tell us what needs to be done,” the bench asked Sibal.<br /><br />He said the question of inconvenience could not be resolved by addressing constitutionality. The RBI act does not give powers to the government to stop withdrawal of money, he argued.<br /><br />Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi, for his part, submitted that the matter should not be considered piecemeal.<br /><br />Multiple states<br />As many as 24 petitions have been filed in high courts across India, besides petitions in the apex court. The plea to bunch and transfer all petitions should come up for hearing on Friday, he said.<br /><br />When several advocates started arguing simultaneously, the court warned them to pipe down or be prepared for a six-week adjournment. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the CPM which has also filed a petition, said Sibal would lead them and he would only “supplement” him.<br /><br />BJP’s Ashwini Upadhyay said 78% of citizens use currency notes lower in value than Rs 100, and only 22% hold higher value bills. <br /><br />Making an oblique reference to Sibal, who was a minister in the UPA regime, Upadhyay said those who had propounded the ‘zero-loss’ theory in 2G and coal scams were now raising their voice.<br /><br />Advocate M L Sharma and S Muthukumar sought compensation for those who had died in distress situations brought about by demonetisation.<br /><br /> </p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine the constitutional validity of the government’s November 8 decision to demonetise high-value notes. <br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice D Y Chandrachud posted the matter for hearing on December 2.<br /><br />The court will also consider on that day the Centre’s plea to transfer petitions filed before various high courts to one high court or the Supreme Court.<br /><br />Senior advocate Kapil Sibal urged the court to hear the petitions earlier, on November 29. He said people were starving and farmers unable to begin sowing because of a severe cash crunch.<br /><br />“There are two issues — one is constitutionality and the other about the inconvenience being faced by the people. You tell us what needs to be done,” the bench asked Sibal.<br /><br />He said the question of inconvenience could not be resolved by addressing constitutionality. The RBI act does not give powers to the government to stop withdrawal of money, he argued.<br /><br />Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi, for his part, submitted that the matter should not be considered piecemeal.<br /><br />Multiple states<br />As many as 24 petitions have been filed in high courts across India, besides petitions in the apex court. The plea to bunch and transfer all petitions should come up for hearing on Friday, he said.<br /><br />When several advocates started arguing simultaneously, the court warned them to pipe down or be prepared for a six-week adjournment. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the CPM which has also filed a petition, said Sibal would lead them and he would only “supplement” him.<br /><br />BJP’s Ashwini Upadhyay said 78% of citizens use currency notes lower in value than Rs 100, and only 22% hold higher value bills. <br /><br />Making an oblique reference to Sibal, who was a minister in the UPA regime, Upadhyay said those who had propounded the ‘zero-loss’ theory in 2G and coal scams were now raising their voice.<br /><br />Advocate M L Sharma and S Muthukumar sought compensation for those who had died in distress situations brought about by demonetisation.<br /><br /> </p>
