DEMONETISATION Valid Or Not? : Supreme Court Constitution Bench Hearing- LIVE UPDATES

Chidambaram: What is this decision-making process? If such a massive decision can be taken in 24 hrs, then it can wreak havoc in the country. Secrecy is important, but it must be coupled with time and devotion.

Chidambaram: Second, no time was given to the Board to deliberate on the proposed policy. Finally, the govt must have the information and must reflect on the information. That did not happen.

Chidambaram: What was the data and information placed before the RBI Board, which also comprises laypersons (experts in their own fields, but not familiar with monetary economics)?

Chidambaram: The govt does not have this information. It would possibly be available to a small number of people in the Finance Ministry. The Cabinet would not have this info. Therefore, this proposal must have emanated from RBI.

Chidambaram: It is absolutely clear that the original recommendation came from the govt. This is a reversal of the process. It cannot start with the govt because it does not have the data to accurately assess the burden this policy would place.

Chidambaram takes the court through one of the counter-affidavits in which it was admitted that the govt had advised the RBI to demonetise Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes to deal with the issues of fake currency, etc.

"It started with the GoI."

Chidambaram: The govt has still not furnished these docs. Maybe they will finally reveal them in another RBI publication ten years later. (laughs)

Chidambaram: No one, not the Board, nor the Cabinet, was told that 86% of the total currency would be withdrawn. This is not a guess, but an informed guess. 

Chidambaram: Neither the Central Board, nor the Cabinet had full information wrt the monumental consequences of this policy. These docs, which have still not been put in the public domain, are necessary.

Chidambaram: The only conclusion that can be drawn is there was no application of mind by the RBI, the Central Board, or the Cabinet. The procedure was premeditated and in violation of S 26(2).