Chidambaram: Hardships have a bearing on proportionality. Notes for notes, they exchanged. Alladin's lamp...old lamps for new. But the govt was not prepared. Did they print enough currency and keep it in reserve?
Chidambaram: If they had to demonetise all series, they should have had the cash ready.
Justice BVN: We understand the hardship faced by the common man. When we are testing the constitutionality, can the hardships have a bearing?
Chidambaram: But what about the non-monetary hardships faced by people? The loss of livelihoods, jobs, wages?
Justice Nazeer: What should they have done acc to you?
Justice Nazeer: It was not a loss per se, because you could exchange it. How do you say it is bad?
Chidambaram: There could be cases where persons actually suffered a monetary loss. But people who could exchange...there was no monterary loss
Chidambaram: If this power exists, such power is unguided and uncanalised and must be struck down.
Chidambaram: Does the power to demonetise all series of a denomination flow from S 26(2)? That is a drastic power. If this Court says yes, then I am saying it is unconstitutional and violative of FRs. Either read it down or strike it down.
Chidambaram: The ques is did you apply your mind when implementing this policy? Then where is the record?
Chidambaram: There were not enough currency notes. Remonetisation took several months. Further, what was the geographical distribution of bank branches and ATMs in diff parts of the country? The pt is, all these factors inform the decision.
Chidambaram: ATMs were not calibrated to receive or dispense 2000 rupee notes. Recalibration took months...Given the capacity of the press, there was apart from the legal limit of exchange, there was a practical limit of exchange.
Chidambaram: In 1946 and 1978, a v small proportion of notes were withdrawn. But still there was a window for exchange. But there was no need to remonetise because of the small proportion. Today, we only remonetised through 500 and 2000 notes