The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to indicate what “grave problem” will be caused if citizens with genuine reasons are given an opportunity to deposit their old currency notes by March 31.
The court asked the Attorney General to file an affidavit by April 11 specifying reasons for not extending any concession to such persons who failed to make the deposit by December 30 last year when the window till March 31 to make deposits was opened for NRIs and persons travelling between November 8 and December 30, 2016.
Finding this to be a case where the Government took citizens by surprise, the Bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar told Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, “The Prime Minister’s speech on November 8 created an impression that those who fail to make deposits by the deadline will get time to do so by March 31. Even the December 30 notification everybody understood there would be time till March 31. You bring the law on the last date and that too without giving any notice.”
Rohatgi said, “If the PM said by March you can make deposits and the law fixes December 30, then the law will prevail as it overtakes all past notifications.”
The Court asked A-G, “The demonetisation was for a purpose. If the purpose was found to be lost, what would be the grave problem to allow (deposits till March 31) in view of the window which the Parliament gave you (under the Ordinance)IJ”
The Court urged the Centre to consider that the petitioners before the Court were a few and not a bandwagon as they would be liable for prosecution for holding on to the old currency if their explanation for keeping it is found to be false.
The petitioners requested the Court for a date before March 31 but the Court assured that if their legal right is established, they can deposit the demonetised currency. But in the wake of their petition being dismissed, they will suffer punishment under the law.
One of the petitioners before the Court claimed to have valid proof of travelling outside the country before December 30 for research. But still, the RBI refused to take his deposit demanding customs certificate of bringing this money into the country. This was unnecessary as the petitioner showed proof that the money was withdrawn from his bank and kept at home and not brought into the country on his return.
The Court asked A-G to look into genuine cases and report to Court by the next date.