Supreme Court Live Updates : Challenge Against Demonetisation

Chidambaram: Let us take an extreme case. If the govt wanted to demonetise 100% of the currency, should there not be any safeguards? Our request is, read down S 26.

Chidambaram: This may not be an entirely legal ques...why was the Cabinet waiting to receive the recommendation? Was the Cabinet note amended? There is no record. Let them place these on records. 

Chidambaram: The most counterfeited note is the US 1 dollar. They say we are a reserved currency, we don't care. If counterfeiting was such a serious concern, then show through a realisation of your objs, the extent of the problem. 

Justice BVN: Proportionality has to be tested on the basis of the justification for policy, not on its own.

Chidambaram: Yes, but none of the objs were actually achieved.

Justice Nazeer: If instead of 86%, 40% of the notes were taken away, would you still make this argument?

Chidambaram: Perhaps it would be a weaker argument. They did not have any idea about the notes actually in use.

Chidambaram talks about the "horrendous consequences" of the policy of demonetisation, says, "Is this the proportional way of securing these objectives?"

Chidambaram: Third, within the limited scope of judicial review, whether the govt can set up FALSE objectives and pass a notification?

Fourth is proportionality. 2300 crore notes, worth 15.44 lakh crores...11 crore people stood in queues...

Chidambaram: Our submission is that this power was not available.

Chidambaram takes the Court through the 1946 and 1978 Acts focusing on the non-obstante clauses, says, "These are indications of how the Parliament views its power."

Chidambaram: So first ques was procedure. Second is why, if the Act confers the power, were separate laws enacted in 1946 and 1978? The Govt then thought that this power did not exist.