Supreme Court denies immediate intervention in plea challenging ₹2,000 notes' exchange

The Supreme Court on June 9 refused to entertain immediately a plea by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay challenging the notifications issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and State Bank of India (SBI) permitting the exchange of ₹2,000 currency notes without requirement of any identity proof.

A Vacation Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal instructed the Registry to refer the case to the Chief Justice of India after the summer vacations for listing.

RBI defends before Delhi HC ₹2,000 banknote exchange exercise

Making an urgent mention before the Vacation Bench, Mr. Upadhyay said that ₹2,000 notes worth ₹1.8 lakh crore have already been exchanged in the past 10 days. He said the plea would become infructuous by the time the petition is listed in July, after the re-opening of the apex court.

“The notes exchanged is black money handed over by naxals, criminals, mafia, etc… Everything will be exchanged by July,” Mr. Upadhyay submitted vehemently.

The Vacation Bench pointed out that Mr. Upadhyay had mentioned the petition on an earlier occasion. At the time a coordinate Bench of the apex court had agreed to post the case after the summer vacation.

Mr. Upadhyay said there was no formal order to that extent. However, Justice Bose said the Supreme Court Registry had already marked the case for listing after the vacation, and the Vacation Bench could not do anything in this aspect at this point.

Mr. Upadhyay has argued in the petition that the RBI Notification on May 19 and the SBI notification of May 20, which permit exchange of ₹2,000 banknotes without even obtaining any requisition slip and identity proof was manifestly arbitrary and irrational and Article 14 of the Constitution.

ALSO READ

Supreme Court seeks report from Registry on urgent listing of plea challenging RBI decision on ₹2,000 note exchange

He contended that the Delhi High Court had refused to intervene despite the fact that the currency exchange “gives an open opportunity to legalise illegal money”.

He said the exchange was “totally contrary to the aims and objects of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Benami Transactions Act, Money Laundering Act, Lokpal & Lokayukta Act, Central Vigilance Commission Act, Fugitive Economic Offenders Act and Black Money Act”.