The Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench adjourned the examination of the decision-making process behind the 2016 demonetization policy until November 24 after the Centre failed to file its affidavit explaining its procedural and legal aspects, even as lawyers for the petitioners argued against the plea for deferment of proceedings before a constitution bench, saying it has never been an accepted practise.

A Constitution Bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and BV Nagarathna held "Normally a constitution bench never adjourns like this. We never rise like this. It is very embarrassing for the court also."

The court then postponed the proceedings, ordering the government and RBI to submit their affidavits within a week. The AG admitted that he is embarrassed to seek an adjournment, but assured the court that he will address the court in the most structured manner possible.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the petitioners, asked the court to continue hearing them despite the Centre’s inability to file a reply. "As far as I'm aware.. the practice of this court. When a constitution bench sits.. is not to ask for an adjournment. A request such as this is very unusual. I would, therefore, suggest- if they require time let us open and complete our submission such as they are and there is no problem," "Let us please open and complete our submissions. These are old matters, and the facts are undisputed. On a proper balance, this would be fair. Thereafter, they can take their week and respond. Let them take whatever stand they want to in the affidavit. We will not insist on an argument in response to their affidavit, except in our rejoinder, where we will deal with their submissions."

While the Attorney General and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Court to consider the limits of judicial review in the context of economic policy, the Court was persuaded by the petitioners' argument that, while the policy itself may not be thoroughly examined, the procedure used to implement demonetisation was within its jurisdiction.

Case Details

Vivek Narayan Sharma v Union of India

WP (C) No. 906/2016