BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYA LAND

WRIT JURISDICTION

u/a 32 of the Constitution of Arya Land,

IN THE CASE OF

Associations of Aryans …….…..………....Petitioners

v.

Government of Arya Land .........…….………Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Tulika Sharma (1914292) BBA LLB (9th SEM)

 INDEX

INDEX ....................................................................................................................................... 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ 6

ISSUES RAISED ....................................................................................................................... 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................. 11

PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 16
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

Sec. Section

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Rs. Rupees

ed. Edition

Hon’ble Honourable

Id. Idem

MANU Manupatra

No. Number

Ors. Others

p. Page

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. Section

u/s Under Section

v. Versus
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES AND RULES

(1) The Constitution of India, 1950 (India).

(2) The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (India).

LIST OF CASES

1. Krishna Swami v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 605

2. S.P. Gupta v. President of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 149

3. Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. CBI (2016) SCC OnLine Del 6285

4. Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2006) 10 SCC 337

5. Jayantilal Ratanchand Shah v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors. (1997 AIR 370)

6. BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

1. Prof. S.R. Bhansali, The Constitution of India (Universal Law Publishing, LexisNexis
Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 2015).
2. Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (Central Law Agency, 2020).
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner i.e., association of Aryans have filed a Petition through the Public Interest
Litigation under article 32 of constitution of Arya land before Hon’ble Supreme court against
The Notification issued by the DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (DEA) OF
FINANCE MINISTRY OF ARYA LAND dated 08.11.2016.

In response to which the present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and the
arguments on behalf of the Respondents.

For Court’s convenience the Article reads as follows-

Article 32. 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.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The incidence of fake Aryan currency notes in higher denomination has increased. For
ordinary persons, the fake notes look similar to genuine notes, even though no security
feature has been copied. The fake notes are used for anti-national and illegal
activities. High denomination notes have been misused by terrorists and for
hoarding black money.
2. Arya land remains a cash-based economy hence the circulation of fake Aryan currency
notes continues to be a menace. In order to contain the rising incidence of fake notes
and black money, the scheme to withdraw has been introduced on November 8,
2016.
3. Prime Minister of Arya land announced in a broadcast to the nation that “The legal
tender character of the existing bank notes in denominations of Rs 500 and Rs 1000
issued by the Aryan Reserve bank till November 8, 2016 stands withdrawn and that Rs
500 and Rs1,000 currency notes would no longer be recognized legally as currency.”
4. He noted that the move complements the country’s Swachh Arya Abhiyan (Clean
Aryan campaign). The aim behind the government’s action was to combat tax
cheating, counterfeiting and corruption. The government claimed that the action
would curtail the shadow economy and crack down on the use of illicit and
counterfeit cash to fund illegal activity and terrorism.
5. In the address to nation, the PM said that eliminating large denominations makes it
harder to hide large amounts of cash. In consequence thereof these Bank Notes
cannot be used for transacting business and/or store of value for future usage. The
Specified Bank Notes could be exchanged for value at any of the 19 offices of the Aryan
Reserve bank or at any of the bank branches of commercial banks/ Regional Rural
Banks/ Co-operative banks or at any Head Post Office or Sub-Post Office.
6. Initially, the move received support from people, several bankers as well as from some
international commentators but gradually as the cash shortages grew in the weeks
following the move, large serpentine queues outside banks started appearing. To
counter that, the government, announced that customers who exchange their old
notes for new ones at banks, will be inked, to ensure persons don't exchange money
more than once a day.
7. But the menace did not end here and so the government again came up with a more
surprising but rather a shocking move to issue the bank notes of Rs Twenty thousand
denomination which was a complete U turn to the PM’s address to the nation where he
said that eliminating large denominations makes it harder to hide large amounts of cash.
8. The sudden nature of the announcement and the prolonged cash shortages in the weeks
that followed created significant disruption throughout the economy, threatening
economic output. The move was heavily criticized as poorly planned and unfair, and
was met with protests, litigation, and strikes.
9. The move was heavily criticised by prominent economists and by world media leading
to debates in both houses of Parliament and triggering organised protests against the
government in several places across India. The move is considered to have reduced the
country's GDP and industrial production.
10. The ASE Sensex and Arya Fifty 50 stock indices crashed after the announcement. In
the days following the demonetisation, the country faced severe cash shortages with
severe detrimental effects across the economy. People seeking to exchange their bank
notes had to stand in lengthy queues, and several deaths were linked to the
inconveniences caused due to the rush to exchange cash.Aggreived by the decision of
the government and calling it a ‘Tughlaki Farman.’
11. An Association of Aryans (AOA) filed the PIL before the Apex court of Arya land to
quash the November 8 notification of the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) of
Finance Ministry of Arya land on the following grounds:
• That the said decision is violation of Section 26(2) of the Aryan Reserve bank
1934 which, according to him, mandates that, “reasonable time be given to
people to make alternate financial arrangements to avoid large scale mayhem and
chaos.”
• That the introduction of Rs 20,000 denomination notes is an “illegal act” as per
the provisions of section 24 of Aryian Reserve bank Act which does not give
power to government to does so.
• That the Aryan Reserve bank guidelines to all the banks, notifying them about
the 'Standard Operating Procedure' for the use of indelible ink on customers who
successfully exchange their own, decommissioned Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes is
violation of Rule 49K(4) of the Conduct of Elections Rules,1961 and moreover
 would create confusion during the elections and will render unscrupulous
elements to cash in on this to indulge in malpractices during the elections.
• That the denial of currency exchange rights to the Account holders of
Cooperative banks as permitted to other banks, which are functioning under the
purview of the same Banking regulations, is illegal, arbitrary and
unconstitutional and is thus violative of the very sprit of Banking Re regulation
Act 1949 and Aryan Reserve bank Act 1934.
• That the common public had to stand in lengthy queue to exchange their bank
notes, and several deaths were linked to the inconveniences caused due to the
rush to exchange cash which is an infringement on citizens' right to life and
personal liberty and is thus violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of Arya
land.
• That the denial of transaction right to the petitioner in exchanging currency,
results in violation of the right to trade and thus is violative of Article 19.
 ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE OR

NOT?

2. WHETHER THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED ON 8TH NOVEMBER VIOLATES

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted that the Public Interest litigation made before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court U/Art. 32 of the Constitution of Arya Land is not maintainable. Since there is no
public purpose in filing this petition because the notification issued by the government was
for the welfare of the general public and that the Petitioners have no locus standi to file
petition since they have no public purpose in filing petition. In furtherance demonetization
was a completely executive act carried out for public welfare and curbing the circulation
of black money and it is well settled that this Hon’ble court cannot interfere in executive
act and public policy. Thus, it is most humbly submitted that the Petition under Art.32 of
The Constitution of Arya Land filed by the petitioner is not maintainable before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.

2. WHETHER THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED ON 8TH NOVEMBER VIOLATES

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that notification was in the favour of
public interest and was in good faith because it does not violate the basic fundamental
rights of the people. It is further also submitted that notification was not ultra vires and it
was in consonance with the provisions of constitution of Arya Land and The Aryan
Reserve Bank.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT

It is humbly submitted that the Public Interest litigation made before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court U/Art. 32 of the Constitution of Arya Land is not maintainable.
The petition is not maintainable for following reasons –

No Violation of Fundamental Rights and No Public purpose for filing the present PIL

It is humbly submitted here that there is no public purpose in filing this petition because
this notification was in public good and as is established by this Hon’ble Supreme Court
itself that Petitioners have no locus standi to file petition if they have no public purpose in
filing petition.1
The petitioners have no sufficient interest in filling this petition. Thus, the petition should
not be maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As was held by this Hon’ble Court
in one of the remarkable cases that any member of the public having “sufficient interest”
can approach the court for enforcing constitutional or legal rights of other persons and
redressal of a common grievance.2
In furtherance it is also submitted that the court will grant relief in appropriate cases where
infringement should be on a large scale affecting the fundamental right of a large number
of persons or it should appear unjust or unduly harsh or oppressive on account of their
poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position.3
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the notification issued on 8th November was in the
favour of public interest and no rights of the people were violated. It was a step towards
complete development and curbing the black money.

1
Krishna Swami v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 605

2
S.P. Gupta v. President of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 149
No interference in executive act
It is humbly submitted that demonetization was a completely executive act carried out for the
public welfare and for curbing the circulation of black money. In one of cases, it has been held
that the issuance of currency notes and its demonetisation is purely an executive act and it is
not open to the courts to step into the said arena4.

In furtherance, it has also been held that the policy decision must be left to the Government as
it alone can adopt which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different
angles. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the
infringement of fundamental right is not shown, Courts will have no occasion to interfere and
the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive
in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the Court cannot
interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government5.

Thus, it is most humbly submitted that the Petition under Art.32 of The Constitution of Arya
Land filed by the petitioner is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4
Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. CBI (2016) SCC OnLine Del 6285

5
Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2006) 10 SCC 337
2. WHETHER THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED ON 8th NOVEMBER VIOLATES THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION

The Counsel humbly submits that the Notification issued by Department of Economic Affairs
(DEA) of Finance Ministry of Arya land regarding the prevention of Counterfeits and hoarding
of money was as a matter of fact a Sovereign function of the state and its was in the public
welfare to remove the income inequality & corruption which existed in the Arya Land.

The Notification issued on a 8th November was a remarkable step towards the betterment of
nation and it was a very balanced step to Re-funnel the Unaccounted Money towards the
Nation’s Economy. And therefore, the Notification does not infringe any Fundamental Right
of the people.

It is humbly submitted that notification was in the favour of public interest and was in good
faith because it does not violate the basic fundamental rights of the people as well as it was in
order to protect the interest of the people and all other basic requirements of life. It was a step
by which people would get an assurance of their Right to Life and Personnel liberty6. None of
the fundamental rights of the people were violated as –

Firstly, it is humbly contended that the Arya land continues to be plagued by problems such as
how the fake notes look similar to genuine notes, The fake notes are used for anti-national and
illegal activities. High denomination notes have been misused by terrorists and for hoarding
black money thus it is evident that the government was justified in order to solve these
problems therefore it was a conspicuous step to protect the interest of the people and to protect
them from any such malpractices as the government is dutybound to look after its citizen and
brace them against any such practices that leads to the infringement of their Fundamental
Rights.

Secondly, the restrictions which were imposed by the notification was temporary in nature and
that many options were put forward to deal with the issue of exchanging the and carrying out
the business, trade and occupation. That there was no clandestine interest of the Government
in hindering any trade practices or occupation.

6
Art. 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty – No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law.
Thus, the ground that people were not given reasonable time to arrange alternative financial
means is not appropriate ground because there were so many other options open for payments
like Cheque, online transactions, money transfer systems etc. Thus notification does not violate
the fundamental right provided u/Art. 19(1))(g) in any manner.

In furtherance, By the notification issued on 8th November, there was no violation of Article
21, on the contrary, the act of government was in order to ensure and secure the people’s right
to life and personal liberty as the black money, counterfeit currency and terrorism ultimately
affects the life of general public. Therefore, it is conspicuous that the notification issued by the
government was in order to curb these problems and safeguard the public interest.

Notification was not ultra vires to the Constitution –

The constitutional validity of this type of notification has previously been challenged before
this Hon’ble Supreme Court When the demonetization in 1978 was introduced by an ordinance,
which was then replaced by the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978.
The Act was challenged before the Supreme on the grounds that it violated the fundamental
right to trade under article 19(1)(f) and 31 (now repealed) of the Constitution of India

The five-judge bench in this case held that the purpose of the Act was “to prevent
unaccounted money from being used for financing illegal activities and preventing the
state from realizing the revenues therefore demonetization served a public purpose and
since the Act provided a procedure for obtaining equal value of currency notes being
exchanged hence there was no compulsory acquisition.”7

It is further submitted that this Hon’ble Court itself emphasized that the time limit imposed
for exchange of the high denomination notes was necessary in order to cease their
circulation as early as possible. The Court held that “if the time for such exchange was not
limited the high denomination bank notes 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 high impossible for the Bank to prove that such a
person was not the owner or holder of the notes on January 16, 1978.” And therefore, The
Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act.

7
Jayantilal Ratanchand Shah v. Reserve Bank of India and ors (1997 AIR 370)
It was within the Limit of Provisions Aryan Reserve Bank Act 1934 –
The legal basis for the order of demonetizing currency can be found under sec. 26 of the Aryan
Reserve bank Act, 1934 under sub-section 2. Wherein the union govt. is given the power to
declare that issue will no longer be a legal tender. The only procedural requirement is that the
Aryan Reserve bank recommends the same to the union govt.

The sub-section reads as follows (Legal tender Character of notes) – (2) On recommendation
of the Central Board the Central Government may, by notification in the Gazette of Arya,
declare that, with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification, any series of
bank notes of any denomination shall cease to be legal tender save at such office or agency of
the bank and to such extent as may be specified in the notification.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that it was in exercise of this power that the
Government, well within the purview of the provision, issued the notification of
demonetisation and that there is no involvement of any arbitrariness or violation.

it is therefore, humbly contended that the argument that the decision of the Govt. is
inconsistent/ in violation of the provision of Sec. 26(2) is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The Counsel humbly reiterates that the actions of the Government have been purely in favor of
the people and not against their interest. The Contentions of the Petitioner are futile and lacks
reasonableness. The Counsel have clearly established that the notification was not inconsistent
with the provisions of the Constitution of the Arya Land. In order to prove the same, the counsel
humbly submits the provision as provided under Article 13 which clearly reads- Laws
Inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights- (2) The State Shall not make any
law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in
contravention of this clause shall to the extent of the contravention, be void. Art. 13 (3)(a)
explains the word law as “Law” includes any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation,
notification, custom or usage having in the territory of Arya the force of law; laws in force
includes laws passed by legislature or other competent authority in the Territory of Arya..”

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the notification issued by central
govt. neither takes away nor abridges the fundamental rights of the people provided by the
Constitution of Arya land.
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts, issues raised, arguments advanced and the authorities cited,
it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to adjudge
and declare that:

1. The writ petition filed by petitioner is not maintainable and therefore be dismissed.

2. The Notification issued by Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) of Finance

Ministry of Arya land be maintained.

3. Or grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant and is
deemed fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed

Counsels for the Respondent