1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL/CRIMINAL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.906/2016

Vivek Narayan Sharma

…Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Union of India

Respondent(s)

WITH

W.P.(C) Nos.908/2016,913/2016,916/2016,

WP© D.No.37946/2016, W.P.(C) No.929/2016, W.P.(C)No.930/2016,

943/2016,W.P.(Crl.) No.162/2016, W.P.(C)

No.951/2016,952/2016,953/2016,954/2016,958/2016,957/2016,T.

P.(C)No.2018-2022/2016,W.P.(C)No.971/2016,972/2016, SLP©

No.35356/2016, T.P.(C)No.2030-2038/2016, W.P.(C)No.978/2016,

W.P.(C)D.No.40114/2016,W.P.(C) No.944/2016,

SLP©No.35805/2016,W.P.(C)No.996/2016,997/2016,

T.P.(C)No.1958-1967/2016 & T.P.(C)No.1982-1996/2016, W.P.(C) Nos.

1006/2016, 1008/2016, 1009/2016, 1010/2016, 1011/2016 and

SLP(C) No. 36757/2016

O R D E R

Writ Petitions are admitted.

Issue notice on the Writ Petitions, special leave petitions and

other applications. The respondents may file reply affidavit within six

weeks. Rejoinder, if any, within three weeks thereafter.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some

length. In our opinion, the following important questions fall for our

consideration in this batch of petitions:

Digitally signed by

MAHABIR SINGH

Date: 2016.12.16

16:40:04 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

(i)

Whether the notification dated 8^th November 2016 is ultra

vires Section 26(2) and Sections 7,17,23,24,29 and 42 of

the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934;

(ii)

Does the notification contravene the provisions of Article

300(A) of the Constitution;

(iii)

Assuming that the notification has been validly issued

under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 whether it is

ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution;

(iv)

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;

(v)

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?

(vi)

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;

(vii)

What is the scope of judicial review in matters relating to

fiscal and economic policy of the Government;

(viii) Whether a petition by a political party on the issues raised

is maintainable under Article 32; and

(ix)

Whether District Co-operative Banks have been

discriminated against by excluding them from accepting

deposits and exchanging demonetized notes.

Keeping in view the general public importance and the far

reaching implications which the answers to the questions may have,

we consider it proper to direct that the matters be placed before the

larger Bench of five Judges for an authoritative pronouncement. The

Registry shall accordingly place the papers before Hon’ble the Chief

Justice for constituting an appropriate Bench.

We may now advert to the issues which are of immediate

concern. The first issue is about the restriction placed on the District

Cooperative Banks to accept deposits or exchange of demonetized

3

currency of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/-. Two broad aspects have been

presented before us. The first is about the complete exclusion of the

District Cooperative Banks from accepting deposits or exchanging

demonetized notes. The second is about the avoidable financial stress

on the District Cooperative Banks because of freezing the deposited

demonetized notes received by the District Cooperative Banks between

11^th and 14^th November 2016, which is stated to be around

Rs.8000/-Crore (Rupees Eight Thousand Crore).

The first point whether the decision of the Authority to forbid the

District Cooperative Banks from accepting deposits and exchanging

demonetized notes, may require detailed hearing. It is only upon

acceptance of challenge to that decision, that th