SC raps Centre on note ban deadline

CENTRE GETS TILL FRIDAY TO RESPOND TO A CLUTCH OF PETITIONS CHALLENGING THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE MARCH 31 DEADLINE TO DEPOSIT OLD NOTES TO DECEMBER 31

The Centre’s decision to go back on its promise of extending the date of deposit of demonetised notes to March 31, 2017 came under judicial scanner with the Supreme Court asking the government to file its response to petitions challenging its move.

A bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar gave government time till Friday to the petitions filed by companies and individuals, contending the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liablities) Ordinance, promulgated on December 13, 2016 penalised those who deposited banned ₹ 500 and ₹1000 notes after December 31.

A mother of recently born twins and a widow are in the list of petitioners before the top court. They referred to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s November 8, 2016 speech, announcing the demonetisation policy, and subsequent notification that promised that individuals would be able to deposit the old notes till March 31, 2017. However, from January onwards it would have been at select RBI centres. The court will hear the petitions on Friday.

One of the petitioners — Sudha Misra — has also asked the court to direct the government and RBI to allow her to deposit her stree dhan in demonetized currency till March 31.

Mishra — who delivered two baby girls on November 4 last year — contended she could not deposit her ‘stree-dhan’ in old currency notes by December 31 because of her premature delivery. She underwent a caesarean operation and waited for her health condition to improve. Since there was time till March 31, she took time to recover completely. She termed the last government notification as a breach of assurances given by the PM and RBI.

“This act of the government was against the legitimate expectation that certain categories of people had with the government and the same was not unfounded as being based on government’s own notification and prime minister’s speech,” Mishra said in her petition.

Another petition, filed by a widow, stated she was not aware of the cash her husband had saved and learnt about it in January this year. She claimed her husband suffered from a memory lapse.