Inter-Semester Moot Court Competition

INTER-SEMESTER MOOT COURT COMPETITION – LUMA | 1
TC~39R
INTER-SEMESTER MOOT COURT COMPETITION
PRESENTED BY: LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICATIA
PIL NO: ____________
FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICATIA,1950.
IN THE MATTER OF;
PIL NO: ___________ OF 2021
RABEESH KUMAR……………….………………………………………………………...PETITIONER
VS
GOVT. OF INDIA……….…………………………………………………………….……RESPONDENT
WRITTEEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

S.NO CONTENTS PAGE NO.
1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3
1.1 CASES REFERRED 3-4
1.2 LEGISLATIONS, 4
NOTIFICATIONS, POLICIES
AND CONVENTIONS
1.3 STATUTES 4-5
1.4 BOOKS 5
2 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
3 STATEMENT OF FACTS 7
4 STATEMENT OF ISSUES 9
5 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10-11
6 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11-32
7 PRAYER 35
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES REFERRED
1. THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF MINES AND ANOTHER V. LALA KARAM CHAND

THAPAR: 1961 AIR 838, 1962 SCR (1) 9
2. BANWARILAL AGARAWALLA V. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS: 1961 AIR 849,
1962 SCR (1) 33
3. TEJ KIRAN JAIN AND ORS. VS N. SANJIVA REDDY AND ORS.: AIR 1971 Delhi 86, 7 (1971)
DLT 1(Delhi High Court)
4. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. M.K. GUPTA: 1994 AIR 787, 1994 SCC (1) 243
5. K.P. MOHAMMED SALIM V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN: CASE

NO.:Appeal (civil) 2946-2956 of 2008
6. RAJ KUMAR SHIVHARE V. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF

ENFORCEMENT AND ANOTHER: (2010) 4 SCC 772
7. R.K. GARG V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS: (1981) 4 SCC 675,
8. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v BIRLA COTTON, SPINNING AND WEAVING

MILLS,DELHI AND ANR: 1968 AIR 1232, 1968 SCR (3) 251
9. SHRI SITARAM SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS: 1990 AIR 1277
10. P.T.R. EXPORTS (MADRAS) PVT. LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS: 435 1996
SCALE (5)362
11. BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LIMITED V. SIR SHADI LAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED AND
ANOTHER: CIVIL MISC. Writ Petition No.36685 of 2004 (Allahbaad Highcourt)
12. MAHARAJ SINGH V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS: 1976 AIR 2602
13. ASSOCIATION OF VASANTH APARTMENTS’ OWNERS V. V. GOPINATH, 2023 SCC SC
137
14. MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE:

15. JAYANTILAL RATANCHAND SHAH VS RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS: 681
1996 SCALE (5)741
16. M.R.F. LTD. V. INSPECTOR KERALA GOVT. AND OTHERS: AIR 1952 SC 196
17. INDRA GANDHI V. RAJ NARAIN, AIR 1975 SC 2299
18. BERUBARI UNION (1960),
19. SOMI HORAM TONGKHUL NAGA V. UNION OF INDIA (1980): order No. Gau. Cy. Mgr.
601/47-79/90 (Guhati High Court)
20. BIMLADEVI V. UNION OF INDIA (1982): 1983 (4) DRJ 236(Delhi High Court)
21. BISHAMBER DAYAL CHANDRA MOHAN VS. STATE OF UP: 1982 AIR 33
22. K T PLANTATION LTD. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA:
(2011) 9 SCC 1
23. GULF GOANS HOTEL COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. UOI: W.P No. 212/91
24. ASSOCIATION OF VASANTH APARTMENTS’ OWNERS V. V. GOPINATH: CIVIL APPEAL
NO. 7334 OF 2013
25. NAVJYOTI COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY V UNION OF INDIA .In
COUNCIL OF CIVIL SERVICE UNIONS & ORS. VS. MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL
SERVICE: AIR 1993 SC 155
26. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA V. M/S KAMDHENU CATTLE FEED INDUSTRIES(1999)
7 SCC 1 71
27. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. HINDUSTAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ORS: 1993
SCR (3) 128
28. B RAM LAL VS STATE AIR 1954 ALL 758
29. BALCO EMPLOYEES UNION VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) 8
OF 2001
LEGISLATIONS, NOTIFICATIONS, POLICIES AND CONVENTIONS
1. CONSTITUTION OF INDICATIA 1950

2. RESERVE BANK OF INDICATIA,1934
3. BENAMI TRANSACTION ( PROHIBITION) ACT 0F 1988
4. SALES OF PRODUCTS ACT 1930
LEGAL DATA BASE
1. SUPREME COURT CASES (SCC)

2. ALL INDICATIA REPORTING (AIR)
3. SUPREME COURT RECORDS (SCR)
BOOKS AND WEBSITE
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 25TH EDITION BY DURGA DAS BASU

2. JURISPRUDENCE- THE PHILOSOPHY AND METHOD OF THE LAW BY EDGAR
BODENHEIMER
3. STUDIES IN THE JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL THEORY BY DR. N.V PARANJAPE
4. WWW.SCCONLINE.IN
5. WWW.MANUPATRA.COM
6. WWW.INDIANKANOON.ORG
7. WWW.MAIN.SCI.GOV.IN
8. WWW.SCOBSERVER.IN
9. WWW.CASEMINE.COM
10. WWW.GLR.INFO.COM
11. WWW.DLTONLINEJUDGEMENT.COM
12. WWW.INFOONLINE.COM
13. WWW.WORLDCAT.ORG
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The respondent humbly submits this memorandum in response to the PIL filed before this hon’ble court. this
appeal invokes jurisdiction under article 32 of the constitution of Indicatia.
MAINTAINABILTY OF THE PIL UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL

REVIEW
1. ” In connection with the scope of judicial review into a fiscal and economic policy of the government,
the Supreme Court in the BALCO case ,held that the wisdom and advisability of economic policies are
ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any
statutory provision or the Constitution.
1.1. In other words, it is not for the Courts to consider relative merits of different economic policies and
consider whether a wiser or better one can be evolved. For testing the correctness of a policy, the
appropriate forum is the Parliament and not the Courts. The court clearly stated “in the sphere of
economic policy or reform the Court is not the appropriate forum. Every matter of public interest or
curiosity cannot be the subject matter of PIL. Courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct
the administration of the country
1.2. . Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of Constitutional or statutory provisions or
non- compliance by the State with it’s Constitutional or statutory duties
2. In the case of R.K. GARG V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, another Constitution Bench of this
Court observed thus: “ Another rule of equal importance is that laws relating to economic activities
should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion
etc.
2.1. In R. K. Garg v. Union of India pointed out in that case that laws relating to economic activities
should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech,
religion, etc. We observed that the legislature should be allowed some play in the joints because it
has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any doctrinaire or strait-
jacket formula and this is particularly true in case of legislation dealing with economic matters,
where, having regard to the nature of the problems required to be dealt with, greater play in the
joints has to be allowed to the legislature.
3. the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of SHRI SITARAM SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED
AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, observed thus: Judicial review is not
concerned with matters of economic policy. The court does not substitute its judgment for that of the
legislature or its agents as to matters within the province of either. The court does not supplant the “feel
of the expert” by its own views. When the legislature acts within the sphere of its authority and delegates
power to an agent, it may empower the agent to make findings of fact which are conclusive provided
such findings satisfy the test of reasonableness
4. In PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER V.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [39], Kasliwal, J. observed- “The function of the Court is to see that
lawful authority is not abused but not to appropriate to itself the task entrusted to that authority. It is well
settled that a public body invested with statutory powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its power.
It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith and it must act
reasonably. Courts are not to interfere with economic policy which is the function of experts. It is not the
function of the courts to sit in judgement over matters of economic policy and it must necessarily be left
to the expert bodies. In such matters even experts can seriously and doubtlessly differ. Courts cannot be
expected to decide them without even the aid of experts
5. In PREMIUM GRANITES AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF T. N. AND OTHERS , while

considering the Court’s powers in interfering with the policy decision, it was observed - “It is not the
domain of the Court to embark upon unchartered ocean of public policy in an exercise to consider as
whether the particular public policy is wise or a better, public policy can be evolved. Such exercise must
be left to the discretion of the executive and legislative authorities as the case may be.
6. In M.P. OIL EXTRACTION AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF M. P. AND OTHERS,the Court held
as follows- “Unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious and, not being informed by any reason
whatsoever, can be clearly held to be arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixit of the executive
functionaries thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution or such policy offends other constitutional
provisions or comes into conflict with any statutory provision, the Court cannot and should not out step
its limit and tinker with the policy decision of the executive functionary of the State
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. the country indicatia is a southern-asian country having a sovereign, socialist and secular identity. the
country is the home of around 1.42 billion people (17.7% of the total population of the world.
2. growing at a rapid pace with its mixed economy structure, it ranks 5th in the world economy ranking in
2023, with its 3.8 trillion-dollar vibrant economy. indicatia’s diverse economy encompasses traditional
village farming, modern agriculture, handicrafts and many more. near about 70% of indicatia’s gdp is
driven by domestic private consumption. the country remains the world’s 6th largest consumer market.
3. besides these salient attributes of indicatia, what hinder its growth is the widespread corruption. indicatia
ranks 85th among other 180 countries, according to the 2021 corruption perceptions index reported by
transparency international.
4. the accumulation of black money is on its peak. which not only disturbs the economic equilibrium and
stability but also affect the flow of money in the capital as well as in money market. the activities such as
terror funding, tax evasion, benami transactions, drug trafficking, narcotics dealing and many such
illegal activities involving black currency is rising day by day in the country. the trade cycle of the
financial year 2017-2018 showed very less chances of recovery. the two subsequent quarters predicted
very slow rate of economic growth (only 3.4%). it is curbing the economy of the country.
5. the union cabinet of the government of indicatia had a high-level meeting with the governor and
directors of the reserve bank of indicatia to resolve the current economic issues prevailing in the country.
5.1. suddenly after a week of this high-level meeting, on 18th june 2018 honourable prime minister shri
dhirendra pandit came before the public addressing the nation in a live telecast which was
broadcasted nationwide in all the national t.v. channels and announced a mass demonetisation i.e.,
stoppage and ban in the use of paper currency of denomination ₹551 & ₹1051.
5.1.1. the convenience available with transaction of ₹551 & ₹1051 will not available from now
onwards. he assured that the interest of common man and even the last man of the society will be
protected, who is earning his livelihood by honesty.
5.1.2. the other currencies in form of paper notes and coins are regular which will be used for
transactions and will remain legally valid.
5.1.3. new currency with the denomination of ₹1100 and ₹2100 will have the legal tender and will
be circulated in the economy from now onwards.
5.1.4. the old notes accumulated with the underworld mafias, corrupt politicians, businessmen and
terrorists will now have no values and will remain a mere piece of paper.
6. demonetisation by the government of indicatia is an excellent step to solve the problems of black money
and parallel economy.
6.1. the major purpose of the demonetisation policy was to prevent the usage of high denomination notes
for illegal transactions.
6.2. it is evident that the problem of black money is one of the major concerns of the government and by
introducing the bold policy of demonetisation the government has accelerated the growth of the
economy and has played a wonderful role to deal with the economic crisis.
6.3. a huge crunch of money that operates in the shadow economy will now become a part of the
banking structure itself. banks will have a lot more money to support the economy in this hard
situation where inflation is rising day by day and its impact is directly reciprocated to the middle,
poor and labour classes.
7. speaking further prime minister sri dhirendra pandit directed the way in which the old currency with
denominations ₹551 & ₹1051. with the general public will be exchanged with the new one.
7.1. he told that an amount of ₹11380 can only be exchanged by a person in a week. he set the time limit
from 18th june to 19th july i.e., 1 month by which the currency with old denomination can be
exchanged.
8. the address by the prime minister received a huge setback and criticism by the general public since a
sudden ban in currency with denominations ₹551 & ₹1051 resulted in:
8.1. the shortage of cash in hand with the people. in order to withdraw the cash people, have to wait in a
long queue. the demand of cash increased so drastically that even the banks faced the shortage of
cash.
9. many learned economists referred the move of the government as a despotic and an unplanned one
9.1. as they advocated the fact that there was no independent application of brain by reserve bank of
indicatia.
9.2. many people lost their life either because of standing in long queue or denial by hospitals to give
treatment in exchange of old currency notes which lead to death of many people.
9.3. small business faced the major loss and people also had to keep their work in order to withdraw
money from atm by standing in a queue there was poor coordination between the banks and the
government.
9.4. this off- guard step was greatly criticized by the opposition where many rally were taken out in
protest of such change.
10. after 4 months of this step taken by the government of indicatia, prime minister dhirendra pandit again
came up with a move of printing the image of god kubera in the currency notes and coins along with the
image of bapu which is already there in the in the currency note.
11. aggravated by all such steps taken by the government of indicatia, rabeesh kumar a famous journalist
filed a petition in the supreme court of indicatia challenging
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
THE PIL RAISES THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
1. whether the notification or the address by prime minister dated 18th june 2016 is ultra vires with the
provisions of chapter ii sections 7 and 17 and chapter iii sections 26(2), 23, 24, 29 and 42 of the
reserve bank of indicatia act, 1934.
2. whether the notification contravene the provisions of (part xii. —finance property, contracts and
suits) of the constitution of indicatia?
3. weather the order of the government to print the photo of god kubera in currency and paper note is
secular in nature, does not violate the basic principle of secularism and is in accordance with the
law?
4. whether the impugned order of the government to limit on withdrawal of cash from the funds
deposited in all the registered bank of indicatia has no basis in law and violates the fundamental
principles and rights enumerated in the constitution of indicatia i.e., right to equality and right to
freedom and the implementation of the impugned notification(s) by the government of indicatia
suffers from procedural and/or substantive unreasonableness and thereby violates the same
constitutional provision., and if it does so, to what extent and effect?
STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS
1. whether the notification or the address by prime minister dated 18th june 2016 is ultra vires with
the provisions of chapter ii sections 7 and 17 and chapter iii sections 26(2), 23, 24, 29 and 42 of
the reserve bank of indicatia act, 1934.
The word “any” appearing before the words “series of bank notes” in sub-section (2) of section 26 of the
RBI Act should be construed as “all”. The very credibility of the argument that the word “any” would not
mean “all” is fallacious in nature. If the same is accepted, the Government would technically be permitted to
issue separate notifications for each series but would be prohibited from issuing a common notification for
all series. It is submitted that if such process is held to be permitted, it would lead to chaos and uncertainty.
Furthermore, RBI is not just like any other statutory body created by an Act of legislature and the RBI Act
was enacted for the purposes of taking over the management and regulation of the currency from the Central
Government as per Section 3 of the RBI Act.
The words “taking over the management of the currency” in Section 3 of the RBI Act and “regulate” in the
Preamble have to be given the widest possible import. It is submitted that a narrower construction would
defeat the very purpose of the RBI Act. while considering the question as to whether the delegation is
excessive or not, the nature of the body to which delegation is made is also a factor to be taken into
consideration. It is submitted that in the present case, the delegation is to the Central Government and not to
any subordinate office or department.
2. whether the notification contravene the provisions of (part xii. —finance property, contracts and
suits) of the constitution of indicatia?
This Honourable Court held that once these notes ceased to be legal tender, any restriction on their transfer
to another person could not be said to be unreasonable. Moreover, the Ordinance provided for the exchange
of the high denomination notes for notes of smaller denominations on certain conditions. Therefore, the
restriction imposed by section 4 of the Ordinance was found to be a reasonable restriction. According to the
Article 300A of the Constitution of Indicatia, No person shall be deprived of his property but the
government may “reasonably” restrict the rights to trade, business and livelihood of the people in the
interests of the “general public”. Apart from this right to hold property has been held as not absolute in the
recent judgment of ASSOCIATION OF VASANTH APARTMENTS’ OWNERS V. V. GOPINATH,
two judge bench of the supreme court held that right of the owner to hold the property is not absolute and
unqualified.
3. weather the order of the government to print the photo of god kubera in currency and paper
note is secular in nature, does not violate the basic principle of secularism and is in accordance
with the law?
Secularism in India has to be understood in the background of a multi-religious and multi-cultural society.
In the tradition of past, a distinction or discrimination has not been made based on religion or its belief.
"Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam", a Sanskrit phrase found in Hindu texts such as Maha Upanishad, refers to
the world as one family. Indicatia is a secular country as it has been defined in its preamble that
Indicatia shall be a secular state, the preamble of the constitution presents the intention of its
framers, the history behind its creation, and the core values and principles of nation.
Indicatia has developed its own unique concept of secularism that is fundamentally different from parallel
western concept of secularism. As per the western model of secularism the state and the religion have their
own separate spheres and neither the state nor the religion shall intervene in each other’s affairs. It requires
complete separation of religion and state. However as per Indian model of secularism neither in law nor in
practice any wall of separation between religion and state exists. In other words, Indian secularism does
not require a total banishment of religion from the state affairs.
4. whether the impugned order of the government to limit on withdrawal of cash from the funds
deposited in all the registered bank of indicatia has no basis in law and violates the fundamental
principles and rights enumerated in the constitution of indicatia i.e., right to equality and right to
freedom and the implementation of the impugned notification(s) by the government of indicatia
suffers from procedural and/or substantive unreasonableness and thereby violates the same
constitutional provision., and if it does so, to what extent and effect?
The doctrine of legitimate expectation states individuals who are still unable to exchange their notes and
does not have bank accounts, can pray for restoration of original time limit. If we examine the policy of
demonetisation, it may be observed that the same is not linked to the issue of legitimate expectation. The
policy of demonetisation is aimed inter alia at cutting down the black money, fake currency etc. from the
economy to stop the vehicle of parallel economy. Hence, it may be understood that for a time being if
limitation on withdrawal doesn’t violate the concept of legitimate expectation as interpreted as part of Art.
14 of the Constitution of India.
Under Article 19(6) the government may impose restrictions upon the freedom to practice any profession in
the interest of the general public, and further, the government may make laws in relation to professional or
technical qualifications for practising any profession and the government shall not be barred from carrying
out any business or trade, industry or service
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
A. WHETHER THE NOTIFICATION OR THE ADDRESS BY PRIME MINISTER DATED 18TH

JUNE 2016 IS ULTRA VIRES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER II SECTIONS 7 AND
17 AND CHAPTER III SECTIONS 26(2), 23, 24, 29 AND 42 OF THE RESERVE BANK OF
INDICATIA ACT, 1934.
1. THE EXECUTIVE ACTION BEING VALIDATED BY THE WILL OF PARLIAMENT, THE

CHALLENGE TO THE SAME WOULD NOT SURVIVE.
1.1. The word “any” appearing before the words “series of bank notes” in sub-section (2) of section 26 of
the rbi act should be construed as “all”. The following judgments of this court in support of his
submission that the word “any” will have to be construed to be “all”.
1. THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF MINES AND ANOTHER v. LALA KARAM CHAND

THAPAR
2. TEJ KIRAN JAIN AND OTHERS V. N. SANJIVA REDDY AND OTHERS
3. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. M.K. GUPTA17
4. K.P. MOHAMMED SALIM V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN18
5. RAJ KUMAR SHIVHARE V. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND ANOTHER
1.2. The action under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act cannot be construed in a narrow
compass. It is submitted that various factors, aspects and challenging confrontations affecting the
economic system of the country and its stability will have to be given due weightage while considering
the validity of the action taken under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act
1. THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF MINES AND ANOTHER V. LALA KARAM CHAND THAPAR
2. TEJ KIRAN JAIN AND OTHERS V. N. SANJIVA REDDY AND OTHERS
3. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. M.K. GUPTA17
4. K.P. MOHAMMED SALIM V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN18
5. RAJ KUMAR SHIVHARE V. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND
ANOTHER
1.3. The comparison of the action taken under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act with the 1946
and the 1978 legislations is totally misconceived. It is submitted that, in any case, the 2017 Act not
only addresses the issues relating to the cessation of legal tender under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of
the RBI Act, but also provides for exchange of bank notes in order that Article 300A of the
Constitution of Indicatia is complied with, and also extinguishes the liabilities of the Issue Department
of the RBI under Section 34 of the RBI Act.
1.4. The argument that the word “any” would not mean “all” is fallacious in nature. If the same is
accepted, the Government would technically be permitted to issue separate notifications for each series
but would be prohibited from issuing a common notification for all series. It is submitted that if such
process is held to be permitted, it would lead to chaos and uncertainty.
1.5. The word “any” has been used at two places in sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act.
a) It is submitted that the word “any” preceding the words “series of banknotes” has to be construed to
mean “all”,
b) whereas the word “any” preceding the word “denomination” may be construed to be singular or
otherwise.
1.6. The same word used in the same provision twice could be permitted to have a different meaning. the
judgment of this Court in the case of MAHARAJ SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH and
others in support of his submission
1.7. The alternative submission that if the word “any” is not given any restricted meaning then sub-section
(2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act will have to be held to be invalid on the ground of vesting of
excessive delegation, is also without substance.
a) Counsel submits that the RBI is not just like any other statutory body created by an Act of
legislature. It is submitted that it is a creature created with a mandate to get liberated even from its
creator. It is submitted that the guiding factors for exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section
26 of the RBI Act have to be found from Section 3 of the RBI Act as well as from its preamble.
7. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI V. BIRLA COTTON, SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS, DELHI AND
ANOTHER
8. MAHARAJ SINGH V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS: 1976 AIR 2602
b) It is submitted that the RBI Act was enacted for the purposes of taking over the management and
regulation of the currency from the Central Government as per Section 3 of the RBI Act. The
preamble of the RBI Act also states that the RBI has been constituted to “regulate the issue of bank
c) notes”. It is submitted that the words “taking over the management of the currency” in Section 3 of
the RBI Act and “regulate” in the Preamble have to be given the widest possible import
d) It is submitted that a narrower construction would defeat the very purpose of the RBI Act. It is
submitted that the word “regulate” would also include “prohibit
1.8. Counsel submits that the action under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act cannot be
construed in a narrow compass. It is submitted that various factors, aspects and challenging
confrontations affecting the economic system of the country and its stability will have to be given due
weightage while considering the validity of the action taken under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the
RBI Act
1.9. submits that the alternative submission that if the word “any” is not given any restricted meaning then
sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act will have to be held to be invalid on the ground of vesting
of excessive delegation, is also without substance. The learned A.G. submits that the RBI is not just
like any other statutory body created by an Act of legislature. It is submitted that it is a creature
created with a mandate to get liberated even from its creator.
1.10. Relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
v. BIRLA COTTON, SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS, DELHI AND ANOTHER submits
that, In order to find out as to whether the legislature has given guidance for exercise of delegated
powers, the Court will have to consider the provisions of the particular Act with which the Court has
to deal with, including its preamble.
a) It is submitted that the preamble of the RBI Act read with Section 3 thereof provides sufficient
guidance to the delegate Central Government for exercising its powers. It is further submitted that,
while considering the question as to whether the delegation is excessive or not, the nature of the body
to which delegation is made is also a factor to be taken into consideration.
b) It is submitted that in the present case, the delegation is to the Central Government and not to any
subordinate office or department.
2. PRECEDENTS CONSTRUING THE WORD “ANY”
2.1. A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF MINES AND
ANOTHER V. LALA KARAM CHAND THAPAR was considering the question as to whether the
phrase “any one of the directors” as found in Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952 could mean “only
one of the directors” or could it be construed to mean “every one of the directors”. In the said case,
all the directors of the Company were prosecuted for the offenses punishable under Sections 73 and 74
of the Mines Act, 1952. The High Court had held that any ‘one’ of the directors of the Company could
only be prosecuted. The Constitution Bench of this Court observed thus
a) The Constitution Bench found that the words “any one” has been commonly used to mean “every
one” i.e. not one, but all. It found that the word “any”, in affirmative sentences, asserts, concerning a
being or thing of the sort named, without limitation. It held that it is abundantly clear that the word
“any one” is not infrequently used to mean “every one”.
b) It could be seen that the Constitution Bench, after giving the matter full and anxious consideration,
came to the conclusion that the words “any one of the directors” was an ambiguous one. It held that in
some contexts, it means “only one of the directors, does not matter which one”, but in other contexts,
it is capable of meaning “every one of the directors”. It held that which of these two meanings was
intended by the legislature in any particular statutory phrase has to be decided by the courts on
9. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI V. : 1968 AIR 1232, 1968 SCR (3) 251
10. SHRI SITARAM SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS: 1990 AIR
1277
c) consideration of the context in which the words appear, and in particular, the scheme and object of
the legislation.
d) It could thus be seen that though it was sought to be argued before the Court that since the rule of
strict interpretation of penal statutes in favour of the accused has to be adopted and that the word
“any” was suffixed by the word “one”, it has to be given restricted meaning; the Court came to the
conclusion that the words “any one of the directors” used in Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952 would
mean “every one of the directors”. It is further to be noted that the word “any” in the said case was
suffixed by the word “one”, still the Court held that the words “any one” would mean “all” and not
“one”. It is to be noted that in the present case, the legislature has not employed the word “one” after
the word “any”. It is a settled law that it has to be construed that every single word employed or not
employed by the legislature has a purpose behind it.
2.2. Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of TEJ KIRAN JAIN AND OTHERS (supra) was
considering the provisions of Article 105 of the Constitution of India and, particularly, the immunity
as available to the Member of Parliament “in respect of anything said…….. in Parliament”. The
Constitution Bench observed thus:
a) This Court held that the word “anything” is of the widest import and is equivalent to “everything”.
The only limitation arises from the words “in Parliament” which means during the sitting of
Parliament and in the course of the business of Parliament. It held that, once it was proved that
Parliament was sitting and its business was being transacted, anything said during the course of that
business was immune from proceedings in any Court
2.3. This Court, in the case of LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (SUPRA), was
considering clause (o) of Section (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which defines “service”,
wherein the word “any” again fell for consideration. This Court observed thus:
a) This Court held that the word “any” is of wide amplitude. It means “one or some or all”. Referring to
Black’s Law Dictionary, the Court observed that the word “any” has a diversity of meaning and may
be employed to indicate “all” or “every” as well as “some” or “one”. However, the meaning which is
to be given to it would depend upon the context and the subject matter of the statute.
2.4. In the case of K.P. MOHAMMED SALIM (SUPRA), this Court was considering the power of the
Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to transfer any case from one or more
assessing officers subordinate to him to any other assessing officer or assessing officers. This Court
observed thus
a) The Court again reiterated that the word “any” must be read in the context of the statute. The Court
also applied the 101 principles of purposive construction to the term “any” to mean “all
2.5. In the case of RAJ KUMAR SHIVHARE (SUPRA), an argument was sought to be advanced that
since Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 uses the words “any decision or
order”, only appeals from final order could be filed. Rejecting the said contention, this Court observed
thus:
a) While holding that the word “any” in the context would mean “all”, this Court observed that a right of
appeal is always conferred by a statute. It has been held that, while conferring such right, a statute
may impose restrictions, like limitation or pre-deposit of penalty or it may limit the area of appeal to
questions of law or sometime to substantial questions of law. It has been held that whenever such
limitations are imposed, they are to be strictly followed. It has been held that in a case where there is
no limitation, the right of appeal cannot be curtailed by this Court on the basis of an interpretative
exercise.
CONCLUSION
The word “any” appearing before the words “series of bank notes” in sub-section (2) of section 26 of the
RBI Act should be construed as “all”. The very credibility of the argument that the word “any” would not
mean “all” is fallacious in nature. If the same is accepted, the Government would technically be permitted to
issue separate notifications for each series but would be prohibited from issuing a common notification for
all series. It is submitted that if such process is held to be permitted, it would lead to chaos and uncertainty.
Furthermore, RBI is not just like any other statutory body created by an Act of legislature and the RBI Act
was enacted for the purposes of taking over the management and regulation of the currency from the Central
Government as per Section 3 of the RBI Act.
The words “taking over the management of the currency” in Section 3 of the RBI Act and “regulate” in the
Preamble have to be given the widest possible import. It is submitted that a narrower construction would
defeat the very purpose of the RBI Act. while considering the question as to whether the delegation is
excessive or not, the nature of the body to which delegation is made is also a factor to be taken into
consideration. It is submitted that in the present case, the delegation is to the Central Government and not to
any subordinate office or department
B. WHETHER THE NOTIFICATION CONTRAVENE THE PROVISIONS OF (PART XII. —

FINANCE PROPERTY, CONTRACTS AND SUITS) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDICATIA?
1. DEMONETISATION VIS A VIS RIGHT TO PROPERTY
1.1. The issue of demonetisation had been subjected to challenge for the first time in B Ram Lal v. State,
constitutionality of sections 3 and 4 of the 1946 Ordinance was challenged before the Allahabad High
Court for violating the fundamental right to acquire, hold and dispose property under Article 19(1)(f)
of the Constitution as it stood then.
1.2. The Court held that once these notes ceased to be legal tender, any restriction on their transfer to
another person could not be said to be unreasonable. Moreover, the Ordinance provided for the
exchange of the high denomination notes for notes of smaller denominations on certain conditions.
Therefore, the restriction imposed by section 4 of the Ordinance was found to be a reasonable
restriction. This settled the question of constitutionality.
1.3. Later, the constitutionality of the 1978 Act was challenged. It was argued that the Act resulted in
compulsory acquisition of property in violation of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution as it
stood then. However, the Gauhati High Court in SOMI HORAM TONGKHUL NAGA V. UNION
OF INDIA (1980), was satisfied that the 1978 Act provided adequate procedure for exchange of notes
to safeguard the fundamental right to property.
a) Accordingly, the High Court refused to lay down guidelines on the RBI in this regard and refrained
from issuing any directions to the RBI to exchange notes
1.4. In similar lines, the Delhi High Court in BIMLADEVI V. UNION OF INDIA (1982) observed that
Article 31of the Constitution only requires that compensation be paid for an acquisition. It did not
prohibit payment of compensation before acquisition – the exchange facility
1.5. Finally, In JAYANTILAL RATANCHAND SHAH V. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA case,

challenging Section 4 of the validity of the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act,
11. SOMI HORAM TONGKHUL NAGA V. UNION OF INDIA (1980): ORDER NO. GAU. CY. MGR. 601/47-
79/90 (GUHATI HIGH COURT)
12. BIMLADEVI V. UNION OF INDIA (1982): 1983 (4) DRJ 236(DELHI HIGH COURT
13. JAYANTILAL RATANCHAND SHAH VS RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
1.6. 1978, the petitioners contended that the Act violated their fundamental rights, including the now-
deleted Article 31 (Right to Property), as it allowed the RBI and the government to escape their legal
responsibility to honour these currency notes.
a) They also argued that the move was illegal because the “acquisition” of old notes served no public
purpose — under Article 31 no property could be compulsorily acquired except for public
purposes. At this, the Bench comprising Justices M M Mukherjee, Kuldip Singh, M M Punchhi, S
Saghir Ahmed and N P Singh underlined the preamble of the Demonetisation Act, which said the
move was aimed at checking “illicit transfer of money” for financing transactions “harmful to the
national economy”.
b) In order to find out whether such acquisition of property was for a public purpose since under
Article 31(2) of the Constitution, no property could be compulsorily acquired except for a public
purpose,
c) the Supreme Court referred to the preamble of the said 1978 Demonetisation Act which read as:
“Whereas the availability of high denomination banknotes facilitates 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 demonetise high denomination
banknotes.” The Bench also noted 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”. On the issue of it, not
serving a public purpose, the Bench said that in view of the “evil” the Act was aimed at fighting, it
couldn’t be said it was not enacted for a public purpose.
d) Hence, the Supreme Court in JAYANTILAL RATANCHAND SHAH V. RBI, upheld the
constitutionality of the 1978 Act since the acquisition was for public purpose to resolve the
problem of unaccounted money.
e) The Court also held that a time limit for exchange was a reasonable restriction in view of the
purpose of the law – to clamp down on the circulation of high denomination notes. If a person
f) could at anytime in future go to RBI and ask for exchange value of such notes, the purpose of the
Act would be frustrated. Therefore, the constitutionality of the 1978 Act was upheld.
1.7. Herein before in BISHAMBER DAYAL CHANDRA MOHAN VS. STATE OF UP , Supreme
Court observed that executive order is not law for the purpose of article 300-A, which means until and
unless the legislature imposes limits under a specific provision or passes a new law, any such act will
be unconstitutional. Here, in this context, the RBI Act itself provides ancillary powers to government
to carry such acts smoothly because act of limitation is also act in furtherance of demonetization
1.8. . In K T PLANTATION LTD. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, Supreme Court said that regulating
the use of property is not an infringement on the right itself when it is done by executive with the
authority of law.
1.9. In the case of GULF GOANS HOTEL COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. UOI , Supreme Court
observed that a statutory order that has the force of law, that is, lays down norms, is “law” for the
purposes of Article 300-A. Further, it may be observed that the policy of demonetisation is not at all
violative to the right to property at all since the value of wealth properly acquired by a person doesn’t
get extinguished but yes for the time being little trouble a person faces to get the cash exchanged.
2. The country of Indicatia with 3.8 trillion Dollar is the 5th largest economy of the world and also the 6th
largest consumer of the international supply chain but along with that there are certain issues as it is
mentioned in the fact sheet that according to the report of Transparency International, Indicatia ranked
85th amongst 180 Countries in Corruption Perception Index also the accumulation of black money
disrupts the economic chain of the country as the money involve in black money used in the activities
like terror funding, tax evasion, benami transaction, drug trafficking, narcotics dealing and many illegal.
activities and the trade cycle of the financial year 2017-18 showed very less chances of recovery also the
two subsequent quarters predicted vary low rate of economic growth which is 3.4% only
13. BISHAMBER DAYAL CHANDRA MOHAN VS. STATE OF UP: 1982 AIR 33
14. K T PLANTATION LTD. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA:
(2011) 9 SCC 1
15. GULF GOANS HOTEL COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. UOI: W.P NO. 212/91
3. The notification does not contravene the provision of the part XII- Finance, Property, Contracts
and Suits of the constitution of Indicatia.
3.1. According to the Article 300A of the Constitution of Indicatia, No person shall be deprived of his
property but the government may “reasonably” restrict the rights to trade, business and livelihood of
the people in the interests of the “general public”.
3.2. Since the notification has been issued as countermeasure against terror funding, money laundering
drug trafficking and benami transactions which affect the sovereignty and integrity of India
4. Apart from this right to hold property is not absolute in the recent judgment of ASSOCIATION OF
VASANTH APARTMENTS’ OWNERS V. V. GOPINATH, two judge bench of the supreme court
held that right of the owner to hold the property is not absolute and unqualified.
5. The constitutional bench in the in the case of MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH
CENTRE, while considering a balance between the right under Article 19(1)(g) and the reasonable
restrictions under clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
5.1. The impugned provisions of the statute and rules amount to reasonable restrictions and are brought out
in the interest of the general public, the exercise that is required to be undertaken is the balancing of
fundamental right to carry on occupation on the one hand and the restrictions imposed on the other
hand. This is what is known as “Doctrine of Proportionality”
5.2. Jurisprudentially, “proportionality” can be defined as the set of rules determining the necessary and
sufficient conditions for limitation of a constitutionally protected right by a law to be constitutionally
permissible.
5.3. According to Aharon Barak (former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Israel), there are four sub-
components of proportionality which need to be satisfied [ Aharon Barak, Proportionality:
Constitutional Rights and Their Limitation (Cambridge University Press 2012).], a limitation of a
constitutional right will be constitutionally permissible if:
a) It is designated for a proper purpose;
b) The measures undertaken to effectuate such a limitation are rationally connected to the fulfilment
of that purpose;
c) The measures undertaken are necessary in that there are no alternative measures that may similarly
achieve that same purpose with a lesser degree of limitation; and finally
16. ASSOCIATION OF VASANTH APARTMENTS’ OWNERS V. V. GOPINATH: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7334 OF 2013
d) There needs to be a proper relation (“proportionality stricto sensu” or “balancing”) between the
importance of achieving the proper purpose and the social importance of preventing the limitation
on the constitutional right.”
6. The proportionality doctrine is sought to be placed in service on the ground that in the case of Jayantilal
Ratanchand Shah (supra), the Court held the bank notes to be property Under Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India.
APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY IN THE CURRENT CASE
7. The impugned Notification has been issued with an objective to meet the following three concerns:
7.1. Fake currency notes of the SBNs have been largely in circulation and it has been found to be difficult
to easily identify genuine bank notes from the fake ones;
7.2. It has been found that high denomination bank notes were used for storage of unaccounted wealth
which was evident from the large cash recoveries made by law enforcement agencies; and
7.3. It has also been found that fake currency is being used for financing subversive activities such as drug
trafficking and terrorism, causing damage to the economy and security of the country.
8. For the purpose of achieving these objectives, the Central Government, on the recommendations of the
Central Board, took a decision to demonetize the bank notes of denominational value of Rs.551/- and
Rs.1051/-.
8.1. Assuming that holding bank notes is a right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the
limitation that is imposed is designated for a proper purpose hence it satisfies the first test.
8.2. There is a reasonable nexus between the measure of demonetization with the aforesaid purposes of
addressing issues of fake currency bank notes, black money, drug trafficking & terror financing. As
such, the second test stands satisfied.
8.3. There are no alternative measures that may similarly achieve the same purpose with the lesser degree
of limitation.
9. In the case of M.R.F. LTD. V. INSPECTOR KERALA GOVT. AND OTHERS, to judge the
reasonableness of the restrictions, no abstract or general pattern or a fixed principle can be laid down so
as to be of universal application and the same will vary from case to case
17. M.R.F. LTD. V. INSPECTOR KERALA GOVT. AND OTHERS: AIR 1952 SC 196
CONCLUSION
The part 12 of the constitution is not violated because of this step as the notification is not impugned as it
was a necessity to maintain the sovereignty and integrity for republic of indicatia and there was no other
alternative left for the governments to achieve the objectives against terror funding, tax evasion, benami
transactions, drug trafficking, narcotics dealing and many such illegal activities involving black currency.
And the learned counsel of petitioner is wasting the precious time of the Honourable Court.
This Honourable Court held that once these notes ceased to be legal tender, any restriction on their transfer
to another person could not be said to be unreasonable. Moreover, the Ordinance provided for the exchange
of the high denomination notes for notes of smaller denominations on certain conditions. Therefore, the
restriction imposed by section 4 of the Ordinance was found to be a reasonable restriction.
According to the Article 300A of the Constitution of Indicatia, No person shall be deprived of his property
but the government may “reasonably” restrict the rights to trade, business and livelihood of the people in the
interests of the “general public”.
Since the notification has been issued as countermeasure against terror funding, money laundering drug
trafficking and benami transactions which affect the sovereignty and integrity of India. Apart from this right
to hold property has been held as not absolute in the recent judgment of ASSOCIATION OF VASANTH
APARTMENTS’ OWNERS V. V. GOPINATH, two judge bench of the supreme court held that right of
the owner to hold the property is not absolute and unqualified.
C. WEATHER THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PRINT THE PHOTO OF GOD

KUBERA IN CURRENCY AND PAPER NOTE IS SECULAR IN NATURE, DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF SECULARISM AND IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE LAW?
1. The term secularism means that the state does not give shelter to any religion. The secular state is a state
which guarantees individual and corporate freedom of religion deals with the individual as a citizen
irrespective of his religion is not constitutionally connected to a particular, nor does it seek either to
promote or interfere with religion upon closer examination it will be seen that the conception of a secular
state involves three distinct but inter – related sets of relationships concerning the state, religion and the
individual.
1.1. INDRA V. RAJ NARAIN, AIR 1975 SC 2299, the basic feature of the secularism was explained by
the hon’ble Supreme Court which held that, secularism means that “the state shall have no religion of
its own and all persons of the country shall be equally entitled to the freedom of their conscience and
have the right to profess, practice and propagate any religion”.
1.2. Secularism in India has to be understood in the background of a multi-religious and multi-cultural
society. In the tradition of past, a distinction or discrimination has not been made based on religion or
its belief. "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam", a Sanskrit phrase found in Hindu texts such as Maha Upanishad,
refers to the world as one family.
2. Indicatia is a secular country as it has been defined in its preamble that Indicatia shall be a
secular state, the preamble of the constitution presents the intention of its framers, the history
behind its creation, and the core values and principles of nation. Preamble declares Indicatia to be
a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic. The objectives stated by the preamble are
to secure justice, liberty, equality to all citizens and promote fraternity to maintain unity and
integrity of the nation.
In the case of BERUBARI UNION (1960), the Supreme Court said that the Preamble shows the
general purposes behind the several provisions in the Constitution, and is thus a key to the minds of
the makers of the Constitution and also an integral part of the constitution.
3. Indicatia has developed its own unique concept of secularism that is fundamentally different from
parallel western concept of secularism. As per the western model of secularism the state and the
religion have their own separate spheres and neither the state nor the religion shall intervene in each
other’s affairs. It requires complete separation of religion and state. However as per Indian model of
18. INDRA GANDHI V. RAJ NARAIN, AIR 1975 SC 2299

19. BERUBARI UNION (1960),
secularism neither in law nor in practice any wall of separation between religion and state exists. In
other words, Indian secularism does not require a total banishment of religion from the state affairs.
4. Lord Kubera is one of the most popular deities in Hinduism. Kubera is the god of wealth. It is natural that
many Hindus would want to see his images in the country's currency, as it would be a daily reminder of
the blessings of these deities. When the image of the God Kubera is printed on the Indian currency, it
infuses success and power in the money. This helps provide a boost to the economy. Having the image of
deitie on the currency notes will help to reduce counterfeiting. This is because it will be much more
difficult to recreate the intricate designs of these deities than it would be to copy a simple banknote. So,
not only is this a move that is sure to be popular with the Hindu community, but it is also a practical
measure that could help to improve the economy.
5. RELIGIOUS ARTIFACTS USED BY VARIOUS SECULAR STATES

5.1. Indonesia is a Muslim country with less than 2% Hindus and more than 85% Muslims, it had images
of Lord Ganesh on its currency notes. Indonesian Currency note of value 20,000 Rupiah (IDR) contains
the images of Indonesian Independence Activist and former Education Minister Ki Hadjar Dewantara
and Lord Ganesha on one side and image of children in classroom on other side of the note.
5.2. The Akshaya Patra Foundation is an NGO in India headquartered in Bengaluru. This organisation strives
to eliminate classroom hunger by implementing the Mid-Day Meal Scheme in the government schools
and government-aided schools. Akshaya Patra is public private foundation backed by Ministry of
Finance. The term Akshaya Patra is a legendary copper vessel featured in the Hindu epic Mahabharata.
Akshaya Patra being originated from a Hindu text still works not only for Hindus but for every person
irrespective of their religion. ]
6. SECTION 24 RBI ACT 1934 -: DENOMINATIONS OF NOTES.
6.1. The Indicatia Constitution does not mandate any particular form of design of currency notes. Section 24
of the Reserve Bank of India Act only states that the parliament may by law prescribe the form and
design of currency notes. Therefore, the order of the government to print the photo of God Kubera in
currency and paper notes is not unconstitutional.
6.1.1. Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), bank notes shall be of the denominational values
of two rupees, five rupees, ten rupees, twenty rupees, fifty rupees, one hundred rupees, five
hundred rupees, one thousand rupees, five thousand rupees and ten thousand rupees or of such
other denominational values, not exceeding ten thousand rupees, as the Central Government may,
on the recommendation of the Central Board, specify in this behalf.
6.1.2. The Central Government may, on the recommendation of the Central Board, direct the non-
issue or the discontinuance of issue of bank notes of such denominational values as it may specify
in this behalf.
6.2. Any changes made in the design of notes are undergone through two departments: The Currency
Management, which then submits the proposed changes to RBI—the central bank then recommends to
the government, and only after the government’s nod that a particular design comes into effect.
CONCLUSION
Secularism in India has to be understood in the background of a multi-religious and multi-cultural society.
In the tradition of past, a distinction or discrimination has not been made based on religion or its belief.
"Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam", a Sanskrit phrase found in Hindu texts such as Maha Upanishad, refers to
the world as one family. Indicatia is a secular country as it has been defined in its preamble that
Indicatia shall be a secular state, the preamble of the constitution presents the intention of its
framers, the history behind its creation, and the core values and principles of nation.
Indicatia has developed its own unique concept of secularism that is fundamentally different from parallel
western concept of secularism. As per the western model of secularism the state and the religion have their
own separate spheres and neither the state nor the religion shall intervene in each other’s affairs. It requires
complete separation of religion and state. However as per Indian model of secularism neither in law nor in
practice any wall of separation between religion and state exists. In other words, Indian secularism does
not require a total banishment of religion from the state affairs.
The printing of images of God Kubera on currency notes is not unconstitutional and not unsecular in
nature. It would be unsecular if it is asked by minority communities to not use those currency notes.
D. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO LIMIT ON

WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM THE FUNDS DEPOSITED IN ALL THE REGISTERED
BANK OF INDICATIA HAS NO BASIS IN LAW AND VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES AND RIGHTS ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICATIA I.E.,
RIGHT TO EQUALITY AND RIGHT TO FREEDOM AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION(S) BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDICATIA SUFFERS
FROM PROCEDURAL AND/OR SUBSTANTIVE UNREASONABLENESS AND THEREBY
VIOLATES THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION., AND IF IT DOES SO, TO WHAT
EXTENT AND EFFECT?
1. LIMITATION ON WITHDRAWAL VIS A VIS LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION

1.1. The issue of demonetisation can be challenged as violation of ‘doctrine of legitimate expectation’.
The said doctrine evolved in UK Courts and being followed by Indian Courts also. In determining a
claim for an alleged breach of a legitimate expectation, a court will deliberate over three key
considerations:
i. Whether a legitimate expectation has arisen;
ii. Whether it would be unlawful for the authority to frustrate such an expectation; and
iii. If it is found that the authority has done so, what remedies are available to the aggrieved person.
1.2. In the case of NAVJYOTI COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY V UNION OF
INDIA .In COUNCIL OF CIVIL SERVICE UNIONS & ORS. VS. MINISTER FOR THE
CIVIL SERVICE , a locus classicus on the subject, wherein for the first time an attempt was made to
give a comprehensive definition to the principle of legitimate expectation. Enunciating the basic
principles relating to legitimate expectation, Lord Diplock observed that for a legitimate expectation to
arise, the decision of the administrative authority must affect such person either-
i. (a) by altering rights or obligations of that person which are enforceable by or against him in private
law or;
ii. (b) by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either:
iii. (i) he has in the past been permitted by the decision maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately
expect to be permitted to continue to do until some rational ground for withdrawing it has been
communicated to him and he has been given an opportunity to comment thereon or
iv. (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without first
giving him an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should be withdrawn.
20. NAVJYOTI COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY V UNION OF INDIA .IN COUNCIL OF CIVIL
SERVICE UNIONS & ORS. VS. MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: AIR 1993 SC 155
1.3. In FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA V. M/S KAMDHENU CATTLE FEED INDUSTRIES, a

three-Judge Bench of this Court had observed thus: “The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of
a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider
and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due
consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary
concomitant of the rule of law.
i. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision-making
process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a
question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the
claimant’s perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may
outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide
decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-
arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny.”
1.4. In UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. HINDUSTAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ORS
the Supreme Court observed, “If a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of
right guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse of power or violation of
principles of natural justice, the same can be questioned on the well-known grounds attracting Article
14 but a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a
right to invoke these principles.”
i. Thus, the doctrine says that where a citizen has taken certain benefit on the basis of the government’s
promise, the government cannot later deny the benefit to the citizen whereas the said doctrine is not
applicable to the laws made by parliament but only to executive acts.
1.5. Therefore on the basis of the doctrine individuals who are still unable to exchange their notes and does
not have bank accounts, can pray for restoration of original time limit. If we examine the policy of
demonetisation, it may be observed that the same is not linked to the issue of legitimate expectation.
The policy of demonetisation is aimed inter alia at cutting down the black money, fake currency etc.
from the economy to stop the vehicle of parallel economy. Hence, it may be understood that for a time
being if limitation on withdrawal doesn’t violate the concept of legitimate expectation as interpreted as
part of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
21. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA V. M/S KAMDHENU CATTLE FEED INDUSTRIES(1999) 7 SCC 1 71
22. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. HINDUSTAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ORS: 1993 SCR (3) 128
2. INSUFFICIENT PERIOD FOR EXCHANGE
2.1. IN JAYANTILAL RATANCHAND SHAH V. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA case, it was

contended that that window for exchange was “unreasonable and violative” of fundamental rights. In
response to this issue, the Bench held “When (this is) considered in the context of the purpose the
Demonetisation Act sought to achieve, namely, to stop circulation of high denomination bank notes as
early as possible, the… contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted,” .
2.2. It was also contended that the time prescribed for exchange of the high denomination banknotes under
Sections 7 and 8 of the Demonetisation Act was unreasonable and violative of their fundamental
rights. However, this contention was also rejected by the Supreme Court by holding: “When the above
provisions of the Act are considered in the context of the purpose the Demonetisation Act sought to
achieve, namely, to stop circulation of high denomination banknotes as early as possible, the above
contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
2.3. Consequent upon the high denomination banknotes ceasing to be legal tender on the expiry of 16-1-
1978 and in view of the prohibition in the transfer of possession of such notes from one person to
another thereafter as envisaged under Section 4, it was absolutely necessary to ensure that no
opportunity was available to the holders of high denomination banknotes to transfer the same to the
possession of others.
2.4. At the same time it was necessary to afford a reasonable opportunity to the holders of such notes to
get the same exchanged. However, if the time for such exchange was not limited the high
denomination banknotes could be circulated and transferred without the knowledge of the authorities
concerned from one person to another and any such transferee could walk into the Bank on any day
thereafter and demand exchange of his notes. In that case it would have been well-nigh impossible for
the Bank to prove that such a person was not the owner or holder of the notes on 16-1- 1978.
2.5. Needless to say in such an eventuality the very object which the Demonetisation Act sought to
achieve would have been defeated. Obviously, to strike a balance between these competing and
disparate considerations Section 7(2) of the Demonetisation Act limited the time to exchange the notes
till 19-1-1978. However, even thereafter, in view of Section 8, the high denomination banknotes could
be exchanged from the Bank till 24-1-1978 provided the tenderer was able to explain the reasons for
his failure to apply for such exchange within the time stipulated under Section 7(2) of the
Demonetisation Act.
2.6. Apart from the above provisions regarding exchange of high denomination banknotes by the Bank
within the time stipulated therein, provision has been made in sub-section (7) of Section 7, permitting
the Central Government, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to extend in any case or class of cases
the period during which high denomination banknotes may be tendered for exchange.
2.7. From a combined reading of Sections 7 and 8 it is evidently clear that on furnishing a declaration
complete in all particulars in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 7 by 19-1-1978, the holder
was entitled to get the exchange value of his notes from the Bank without any let or hindrance;
thereafter, till 24-1- 1978, he was also entitled to such exchange from the Bank if he could
satisfactorily explain the reasons for his inability to apply by 19-1-1978 and after that date the Central
Government was empowered to extend the period of such exchange. Such being the scheme of the Act
regarding exchange of high denomination banknotes it cannot be said that the time and the manner in
which the high denomination banknotes could be exchanged were unreasonable, unjust and violative
of the petitioners’ fundamental rights.
3. NO VOILATION OF ARTICLE 19(1)(g) :
3.1. Further submitted that the impugned Notification is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India., The contention of the State that the restriction imposed is reasonable and in the
interest of the general public.
3.2. The fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India are non-absolute rights. This means
that the extent to which these rights could be exercised may be limited by the State. This is where the
concept of Reasonable Restrictions come in Article 19 of the constitution deals with freedoms and
their respective grounds of restrictions.
3.3. Article 19(1), six freedoms have been laid down namely, freedom of speech and expression, freedom
to assemble peacefully without arms, freedom to form associations and unions, freedom to move
freely throughout the territory of India, freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory in India,
freedom to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business.
3.4. Corresponding to these six freedoms, certain grounds have been mentioned under article 19(2) to
19(6) on which the state may impose reasonable restrictions. It is not necessary that statutes may be
enacted exclusively for restricting the freedoms under the restrictive clauses. When a statute enacted
by the government restricts these freedoms, such restrictions have to be reasonable.
3.5. Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India provides Right to practice any profession or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business to all citizens subject to Art. Under Article 19(6) the government
may impose restrictions upon the freedom to practice any profession in the interest of the general
public, and further, the government may make laws in relation to professional or technical
qualifications for practising any profession and the government shall not be barred from carrying out
any business or trade, industry or service.
4. NEED FOR SUDDEN DEMONETISATION
4.1. The accumulation of black money is on its peak. Which not only disturbs the economic equilibrium
and stability but also affect the flow of money in the capital as well as in money market. The activities
such as terror funding, tax evasion, benami transactions, drug trafficking, narcotics dealing and
many such illegal activities involving black currency is rising day by day in the country.
4.2. The trade cycle of the financial year 2017-2018 showed very less chances of recovery. The two
subsequent quarters predicted very slow rate of economic growth (only 3.4%).
4.3. Indicatia ranks 85th among other 180 countries, according to the 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index
reported by Transparency International
5. DEMONETISATION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDICATIA IS AN EXCELLENT STEP

TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF BLACK MONEY AND PARALLEL ECONOMY.
i. The major purpose of the demonetisation policy was to prevent the usage of high denomination notes
for illegal transactions
ii. It is evident that the problem of black money is one of the major concerns of the government and by
introducing the bold policy of demonetization the government has accelerated the growth of the
economy and has played a wonderful role to deal with the economic crisis.
iii. A huge crunch of money that operates in the shadow economy will now become a part of the
banking structure itself. Banks will have a lot more money to support the economy in this hard
situation where inflation is rising day by day and its impact is directly reciprocated to the middle,
poor and labour classes.
PRAYER
In light of the issues raised arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for the respondent humbly
prays that the hon’ble supreme court be pleased to adjudge, hold and declare;
1. Dismiss the writ petition as it is not maintainable before the hon’ble court
2. That the notification or the address by the prime minister Dhirendra Pandit dated 18th June 2018 is
not ultra vires with the provisions of chapter iii sections 26(2) of the RBI ACT 1934.
3. The photo of god Kubera in currency and paper note is secular in nature, does not violate the basic
principle of secularism and is in accordance with the law.
4. That the respondents have not violated the fundamental rights of the citizen of Indicatia.
and, any other relief that the hon’ble court may be pleased to grant in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience. all of which humbly submitted.
Respondent
Counsel for respondent


Inter-Semester Moot Court Competition - Luma - 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inter-Semester Moot Court Competition - Luma - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTER-SEMESTER MOOT COURT COMPETITION – LUMA | 1

PRESENTED BY: LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSOCIATION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICATIA

PIL NO: ____________

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICATIA,1950.

IN THE MATTER OF;

PIL NO: ___________ OF 2021

WRITTEEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

S.NO CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1. THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF MINES AND ANOTHER V. LALA KARAM CHAND

5. K.P. MOHAMMED SALIM V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN: CASE

6. RAJ KUMAR SHIVHARE V. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF

7. R.K. GARG V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS: (1981) 4 SCC 675,

8. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v BIRLA COTTON, SPINNING AND WEAVING

13. ASSOCIATION OF VASANTH APARTMENTS’ OWNERS V. V. GOPINATH, 2023 SCC SC

14. MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE:

1996 SCALE (5)741

17. INDRA GANDHI V. RAJ NARAIN, AIR 1975 SC 2299

18. BERUBARI UNION (1960),

601/47-79/90 (Guhati High Court)

22. K T PLANTATION LTD. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA:

24. ASSOCIATION OF VASANTH APARTMENTS’ OWNERS V. V. GOPINATH: CIVIL APPEAL

NO. 7334 OF 2013

25. NAVJYOTI COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY V UNION OF INDIA .In

SERVICE: AIR 1993 SC 155

26. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA V. M/S KAMDHENU CATTLE FEED INDUSTRIES(1999)

SCR (3) 128

28. B RAM LAL VS STATE AIR 1954 ALL 758

LEGISLATIONS, NOTIFICATIONS, POLICIES AND CONVENTIONS

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDICATIA 1950

LEGAL DATA BASE

1. SUPREME COURT CASES (SCC)

BOOKS AND WEBSITE

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 25TH EDITION BY DURGA DAS BASU

MAINTAINABILTY OF THE PIL UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL

5. In PREMIUM GRANITES AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF T. N. AND OTHERS , while

THE PIL RAISES THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:

A. WHETHER THE NOTIFICATION OR THE ADDRESS BY PRIME MINISTER DATED 18TH

1. THE EXECUTIVE ACTION BEING VALIDATED BY THE WILL OF PARLIAMENT, THE

1. THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF MINES AND ANOTHER v. LALA KARAM CHAND

2. PRECEDENTS CONSTRUING THE WORD “ANY”

B. WHETHER THE NOTIFICATION CONTRAVENE THE PROVISIONS OF (PART XII. —

1. DEMONETISATION VIS A VIS RIGHT TO PROPERTY

1.5. Finally, In JAYANTILAL RATANCHAND SHAH V. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA case,

APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY IN THE CURRENT CASE

C. WEATHER THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PRINT THE PHOTO OF GOD

18. INDRA GANDHI V. RAJ NARAIN, AIR 1975 SC 2299

5. RELIGIOUS ARTIFACTS USED BY VARIOUS SECULAR STATES

D. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO LIMIT ON

1. LIMITATION ON WITHDRAWAL VIS A VIS LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION

1.3. In FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA V. M/S KAMDHENU CATTLE FEED INDUSTRIES, a

2. INSUFFICIENT PERIOD FOR EXCHANGE

2.1. IN JAYANTILAL RATANCHAND SHAH V. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA case, it was

3. NO VOILATION OF ARTICLE 19(1)(g) :

4. NEED FOR SUDDEN DEMONETISATION

5. DEMONETISATION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDICATIA IS AN EXCELLENT STEP

Counsel for respondent

You might also like