DELHI
PETITIONER
1. Somani
Versus
RESPONDENT
1. Union of
India
..
2. Reserve Bank of
India.......................................
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
In the present case, both the Petitioners have approached the Honble Supreme Court wide
Article 321 of the Constitution of India to challenge the act of Demonetizing Rs 500 and Rs
1,000 notes from being the legal tender.
It is most humbly submitted before the Honble Court that Article 32 of the Constitution provides
for any order, direction or writ by the Apex Court only when there is a violation or infringement
of Fundamental Right. But, in the present case there is no prima facie violation of the
Fundamental Right of Petitioner due to this act of Demonetization of the Respondents.
Thence, the Honble Supreme Court exercises no jurisdiction wide Article 32 to hear the writ
petition filed by the Petitioners.
1 Article32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part 1. The right to move
the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part.
3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and
( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 ).
4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.
1. Dharmasthan is a State in the Indian Union. White Fort Clinic is a clinic situated in the capital
city of Trobay. Janeshwar is a Data Entry Operator in the State civil service. Janeshwars wife
Somani was under Dr Manu Naths care at White Fort Clinic from June 18, 2016. On
November 8, a day after the Prime Minister declared the decision to withdraw Rs 1000 and
500 notes from circulation, Somani underwent tests at the hospital, including sonography, and
was told the baby was due around December 7, 2016.
2. However, in the morning on November 9, Somani went into labour and the baby was
delivered in the care of relatives and neighbours. Since the baby, weighing all of 1.6 kg, was
born premature and Somani lost a lot of blood during the delivery, the family decided to rush
her to Dr Manu Nath. At the hospital, while Dr Nath gave primary care, she refused to admit
her because of her husband's inability to pay the entire Rs 6,000 deposit in currency notes.
Since the banks and ATMs were shut for the day as the government grappled with the
complications of removing old currency notes and replacing them with the new ones, the
family requested that they be given time for payment .But Dr Nath did not relent and sent
Somani and her baby back.
3. When the baby's condition worsened on November 10, the family rushed him to Dr Manu
Nath. But the infant died even as his mom and dad waited for their turn to see the doctor. The
Leading Newspaper, Dharmasthan Times published a report about the incident. It was
reported that when the reporter contacted Dr Nath, she admitted that the primary reason to
refuse admission to Somani and her baby was the family's inability to pay the full deposit.
She, however, also added that the baby required Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) care
and since her Clinic did not have the facility, she suggested that the family should move the
mother and the infant to Greater Trobay hospital. She said "I carried out the primary checkups
and the necessary intervention. But she could not pay for the treatment with valid currency, so
how could I admit her?".Somani confirmed the statement of Dr Nath and said that though my
husband went to the bank on 9th they allowed to withdraw only Rs 3000 and asked to come in
the next day.
4. On 30-11-2016 Somani filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution containing the
prayer that the Court may order the central Government to pay Rs 10,00,000 as palliative to
her for the gross violation of her fundamental right .On 1-12-2016 another writ petition was
MAINTAINABLITY OF PETITION NO.1- In the present case, Petitioner No.1 has filed a writ
Petition by approaching the Honble Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
challenging the validity of Demonetizing Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes from being the legal tender.
It is pertinent to mention that the aforementioned Article can be invoked only when there is
infringement of Fundamental right of the person who ha s moved the writ petition.2
But, it is respectfully submitted that in the present case there is no infringement of Fundamental
right of the Petitioner No.1 done by the State.
Respondents have just performed their statutory duty by enacting a policy on 7 th November,
2016 of Demonetizing High Denomination Notes for achieving three fold purpose namely:
a) curbing the problem of Black Money Prevalent in the Economy.
b) curbing the circulation of fake currency that in India.
c) Lastly, to check the circulation of funding in terrorism activities.
In the present case there has been no violation of article 21 of the constitution. To establish the
violation of article 21 , the act should be subjected to the equality test of article 14 and the test of
2 Common Cause v U.O.I, (1996) 6 SCC 667: AIR 1999 SC 2979; Andhra Industrial works v. Chief
Controller of imports, AIR 1974 SC 1539
4 D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982; Mahesh Chandra
v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn, AIR 1993 SC 935
6, Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy, Represented by its Partner Shri Kasturi Lal, Jammu and Ors.
Vs.: State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr. AIR 2000 Guj 160; LIC v. Consumer
Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811.
7
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689.
8
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.
9
Paramanand Katara vs Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039( para 7&8)
10
P.P. Enterprises V. Union of India. 1982 S.C.C.(Cr.)341
11
Deepak Yadav Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
12
Kochuni v State of Madras, (196)3 SCR 887 (1914)
13
Pathumma v. State of Kerala; AIR 1978 Sc 771 (para 14).
14
AIR 2010 SC 2550.
15
AIR 2004 SC 1923
16
2002 SC 350
Section 7(1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934- The Central government may from time to
time give such directions to the bank as it may, after consultation with the Governor consider
necessary in the public interest.
Whereas the availability of high denomination bank notes facilities the illicit transfer of money
for financing transactions which are harmful to the national economy or which are for illegal
purposes and it is therefore necessary in the public interest to demonetize high denomination
bank notes.
The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of the Demonetisation Act and held that From
the above preamble it is manifest that the Act was passed to avoid the grave menace of
unaccounted money which had resulted not only in affecting seriously the economy of the
country but had also deprived the State Exchanger of vast amounts of its revenue. Considering
the evil the above Act sought to remedy it cannot be said that it was not enacted for a public
purpose.
The Court also repelled the Petitioners contentions that the Act was unreasonable and violative
of their fundamental rights as under and upheld the validity of the said act even if it was creating
menace among public by saying that the actual motive was for public good and is not violative of
any fundamental right.
Thenceforth, it is contended before the Honble Court that is not due to the act of Respondents
that there is any infringement of Fundamental Right of the Petitioner. Hence, Petition No.1 is not
maintainable.
17
JT 1996 (7), 68;1996 SCALE (5)741.
18
AIR 2010 SC 3351