delhi high court
Photo: File photo
Expansion
The Delhi High Court on Monday said that Rs 2,000 notes have served their purpose and the decision to withdraw them is a policy matter in which courts should not interfere. The court dismissed the petition challenging the RBI notification.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramaniam Prasad noted that the Rs 2,000 denomination bank notes were introduced to meet the currency requirement of the economy in the backdrop of the Centre’s decision to demonetise high-value currency notes in November 2016. Were. The bench said that once bank notes of other denominations are available in sufficient quantity, the purpose is served.
The bench further said that the decision to withdraw these notes is not a part of demonetisation. Further, the government has decided not to insist on the requirement of identity proof for exchange of these notes so that everyone can exchange it with notes of other denominations. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision of the Government is perverse or arbitrary or that it promotes black money, money laundering, profiteering or that it promotes corruption.
2000 notes can be changed without ID, application rejected
A bench of Delhi High Court Chief Justice Satish Kumar Sharma and Justice Subramaniam Prasad on Monday dismissed a petition challenging the notification to exchange Rs 2,000 notes without application and without identity proof. Challenging the notification of the Reserve Bank of India and the State Bank of India, BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay had said in the petition that a large number of Rs 2,000 notes have either reached personal lockers or have been handed over to separatists, terrorists, Naxalites, drug dealers, etc. Smugglers, mining mafia and corrupt people have accumulated.
In the petition, the notification issued by RBI and SBI was said to be arbitrary, irrational and against Article 14 of the Constitution. During the hearing, senior advocate Parag Tripathi, appearing for RBI, opposed the plea and said that it is a statutory function. Not demonetisation.
