demonetisation moot memorial, Slides of Law

Download demonetisation moot memorial and more Slides Law in PDF only on Docsity!

TC- 37R

UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH

INTER-SEMESTER MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICATIA

WRIT PETITION NUMBER- _____________ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

RABEESH KUMAR…………………………………………..PETITIONER

VERSUS

GOVERNMENT OF INDICATIA …………………………..RESPONDENT

PETITION INVOKED UNDER ART.32 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDICATIA

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S

JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICATIA

SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………….3-
• STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………….6-
• STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………….7-
• STATEMENT OF ISSUES ……………………………………………8-
• SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………....
• ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………11-
• PRAYER OF RELIEF………………………………………………….

INDEX OF AUTHORITITIES

A. CASES CITED

S. no. Case Name Page Number

1. L. Chandrakumar V. Union of India 11
2. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery

3. Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd.v.Union of India 11 4 Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly

5 R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay 12 6 The Chief Inspector of Mines and another v. Lala Karam Chand Thapar etc

7 Banwarilal Agarawalla v. The State of Bihar and others

8 Tej Kiran Jain and others v. N. Sanjiva Reddy and others

9 Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta

10 K.P. Mohammed Salim v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin

11 C.I.T. v. S. Teja Singh 13 12 Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others

13 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi and another

14 Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia and others v UOI

15 Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal Kuan, Delhi and another v UOI & another

16 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi and another

17 Delhi Laws Act, In Re 14 18 M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India and others

19 Yakus v. U.S. 14 20 Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and another

21 Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others

22 Bajaj Hindustan Limited v. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Limited and another

23 North Carolina v. Wayne Claude RICE 15 24 Mills v. Green 15 25 K.T Plantation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka 16 26 St. Xavier College v. State of Gujarat 16

27 S. R. Bommai v. Union of India 17 28 Aruna Roy v. Union of India 17 29 A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras 19 30 Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester Racecourse Co

31 Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee

B. BOOKS REFFERED

CONSTITUTION

1. Durga Das Basu, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3711 (8rd Ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa 2008).
2. V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION LAW OF INDIA, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY, INDIA, 2008, 11TH EDITION
3. M.P. JAIN, INDIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LEXIS NEXIS, INDIA, 2010, 6TH EDITION C. NEWSPAPERS, JOURNALS AND REPORTS The Hindu Indian Express Live Mint D. WEBSITES REFERRED 1.https://theprint.in/judiciary/with-no-constitution-bench-set-up-yet-challenges-to- demonetisation-now-an-academic-exercise/579203/ 2.https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/demonetisation-big-supreme-court-verdict-on- centres-note-ban-move-likely-today-10-facts- 3.https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/demonetisation-supreme-court-uphold-reasonable- nexus-rbi-act-
4. https://main.sci.gov.in/ E. STATUES/ ORDERS REFERRED The Constitution of India (1950) The Reserve Bank of India Act (1934)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And AIR All India Reporter Hon’ble Honourable HC High Court No. Number Ors. Others P/Pg. Page SC Supreme Court SCC Supreme Court Cases SCR Supreme Court Reports S./Sec. Section Ss. Sections A./Art. Articles v./ V/S Versus Vol. Volume FRs Fundamental Rights Ors. Others Consts. Contsitution Govt. Government i.e. That is UOI Union of India WRT With Respect to

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has filed a PIL and approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of Constitution of Indicatia, challenging the step of demonetization and printing the images of Religious God in paper notes taken by the Government of Indicatia by contending that this step of demonetizing currency is not in the accordance with the provisions laid down in Reserve Bank of Indicatia Act 1934 and violates them and also it infringes the fundamental rights of the citizens enumerated in the Constitution of Indicatia 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 rights conferred by this Part.
3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) & (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution. The respondents have appeared in front of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indicatia in response to the petition filed by the petitioner.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Cause of Action:

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) making it the most populous country in the world. It is also the sixth largest country having a major crunch of 3.28 million 𝑘𝑚ଶ^ landmass. Growing at a rapid pace with its mixed economy structure, it ranks 5th in the world economy ranking 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.
2. Indicatia ranks 85th among other 180 countries, according to the 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index reported by Transparency International. 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%).
3. 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. 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 demonetization of paper currency of denomination ₹551 & ₹1051 ,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. The other currencies in form of paper notes and coins are regular which will be used for transactions and will remain legally valid. He also said new currency with the denomination of ₹1100 and ₹ will have the legal tender and will be circulated in the economy from now onwards.
4. The major purpose of the demonetisation policy was to prevent the usage of high denomination notes for illegal transactions. 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 middle, poor and labour class. 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. He told that an amount of ₹11380 can only be exchanged by a person in a week. The time limit from 18th June to 19th July i.e., 1 month by which the currency with old denomination can be exchanged.

5. The demand of cash increased so drastically that even the banks faced the shortage of cash. Many learned economists referred the move of the government as a despotic and an unplanned one as they advocated the fact that there was no independent application of brain by Reserve Bank of Indicatia. 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. 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.
6. 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 Parties to dispute:
7. The despotic move by the Government of Indicatia has left the people of Indicatia helpless and in agony while many have lost their lives while standing in long queue for exchanging notes or denial by hospital for treatment in exchange of old currency notes for which RABEESH KUMAR a famous journalist filed a petition challenging the move of demonetization by the government, and printing the image of Religious god in paper notes.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the petition filed by Rabeesh Kumar maintainable in the Supreme Court of Indicatia?
2. Whether the notification or the address by Prime Minister dated 18th June 2018 is ultra vires with the provisions of Chapter II Sections 7 and 17 and Chapter III Sections26(2), 23, 24, 29 and 42 of the Reserve Bank of Indicatia Act, 1934;
3. Whether the notification contravene the provisions of (Part XII. —Finance, Property, Contracts and Suits ) of the Constitution of Indicatia?
4. Whether 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 accordance with the law?
5. 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?
6. Whether the time requisite for such a large scale decision can be effectively taken within a week.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the petition filed by Rabeesh Kumar maintainable in the Supreme Court of Indicatia? The Petition filed before the Supreme Court of Indicatia is not maintainable as there is neither any violation of any statutory provision nor there is any violation of Fundamental Rights. Moreover, instead of approaching this Court, the petitioner should have approached the High Court to exercise alternate remedy and to challenge the constitutionality of such order ( notifications)
2. Whether the notification or the address by Prime Minister dated 18th June 2018 is ultra vires with the provisions of Chapter II Sections 7 and 17 and Chapter III Sections26(2), 23, 24, 29 and 42 of the Reserve Bank of Indicatia Act, 1934; The notification is not in violation of Chapter II and III of RBI Act, 1934. 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.
3. Whether the notification contravene the provisions of (Part XII. —Finance, Property, Contracts and Suits ) of the Constitution of Indicatia? The notification is not violative of Part XII of the Constitution of Indicatia while the petitioner contended that the notification violates Art. 300A of the constitution of Indicatia By demonetization, the right vested in the notes was not taken away. The only restrictions were with regard to exchange of old notes with the new notes, which were also gradually relaxed from time to time. the right to property was sought to be taken away is without substance.
4. Whether 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 accordance with the law?

The decision of the government to print photo of God Kubera in the currency notes does not violate the basic principle of secularism or the constitutional mandate in any way or form and it is in accordance with the law. ‘Secularism’ means a State which does not recognize any religion as a State religion. It treats all religions equally while the printing in not any form try to promote any religion

5. 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? No Fundamental right is absolute there are reasonable restriction attached to every article of the Constitution. As such the impugned order to limit withdrawal was a reasonable order to not extinguish the amount available by the bank by one single person.
6. Whether the time requisite for such a largescale decision can be effectively taken within a week? It can be seen that confidentiality and secrecy in such sort of measures is of paramount importance. It would thus show that the exercise requires great degree of confidentiality and which cannot be maintained and thus taking greater time period would have shown a breach of confidentiality and thus defeat of purpose. The very nature of this activity is such that it should be done in nick of time to achieve its purpose.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the Writ petition filed by Rabeesh Kumar is maintainable in the Supreme Court of Indicatia? 1.1 No Infringement of Fundamental Right.
2. No action lies in the Supreme Court under Art. 32 unless there is an infringement of a Fundamental Right, as the Supreme Court has previously emphasized that “The violation of Fundamental Right is the sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by Art. 32.” 1.2 Alternative Remedy Has Not Been Exhausted
3. The HC is competent enough to hear this particular case by the virtue of L. Chandrakumar V. Union of India^1. Alternative remedy is a bar unless there was complete lack of jurisdiction in the officer or authority to take action impugned, however, the existence of a competent body to hear this particular case questions the maintainability of the writ petition filed. It was held by this Hon’ble apex court in Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery^2 where there is alternative statutory remedy court should not interfere unless the alternative remedy is too dilatory or cannot grant quick relief. Thus, the respondents humbly submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that alternative remedy has not been exhausted. Thus, the Respondent on behalf of Union of Indicatia submit that the present writ petition in not maintainable for the aforesaid reasons. 1.3 Scope of Judicial Review in matters related to fiscal and economic policy of the government is out of jurisdiction.
4. A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd.v.Union of India^3 has held that in judicial review the court is not concerned with the matters of economic policy. The court does not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature or its agent as to the matters within the province of either. The legislature while delegating the powers to (^1) 1990 AIR Sc 2263 (^2) 1998 AIR 1889,1980 SCR (1) 134 (^3) 1990 AIR 1277, 1990 SCR (1) 909

its agent may empower the agent to make findings of fact which are conclusive provided, such findings satisfy the test of reasonableness. In all such cases, the judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the findings of facts are reasonably based on evidence and whether such findings are consistent with the laws of the land 1.4 The contention is purely an academic exercise and individual problems and issues may be taken on executive side to avoid wasting of time of Hon’ble Court.

4. This is to be noted that the order was made with some object in mind which may have or may have not been successful in reaching its set objective, it maybe an academic exercise to see the objective was reached or not, it may not be a matter for consideration before the Hon’ble Court. Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly 4 and R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay^5. 2 Whether the notification or the address by Prime Minister dated 18th June 2018 is ultra vires with the provisions of Chapter II Sections 7 and 17 and Chapter III Sections26(2), 23, 24, 29 and 42 of the Reserve Bank of Indicatia Act, 1934; 2.1 The word “any” u/s 26 of the RBI Act shall be construed as “all”
5. 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 the submission that the word “any” will have to be construed to be “all”. (i) The Chief Inspector of Mines and another v. Lala Karam Chand Thapar etc.^6 (ii) Banwarilal Agarawalla v. The State of Bihar and others^7 (iii) Tej Kiran Jain and others v. N. Sanjiva Reddy and others 8 (iv) Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta^9 (v) K.P. Mohammed Salim v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin 10 (^4) 2020 2 SCC 595 (^5) 1984 2 SCC 183 (^6) 1961 AIR 838, 1962 SCR (1) 9 (^7) 1962 1 SCR 33 (^8) 1970 2 SCC 272 (^9) 1994 1 SCC 243 (^10) 2008 11 SCC 573

6. 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. If the construction as advanced by the petitioners is accepted, then the very purpose for which the provision is made shall stand frustrated, the judgment of this Court in the case of C.I.T. v. S. Teja Singh, submits that it is a settled principle of law that the Courts will strongly lean against a construction of a provision which will render it futile. It is submitted that the bolder construction, based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result, is required to be accepted. 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. the word “any” has been used at two places in sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act. It is submitted that the word “any” preceding the words “series of bank notes” has to be construed to mean “all”, whereas the word “any” preceding the word “denomination” may be construed to be singular or otherwise. 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^11 is in support of the submission. 2.2 Excessive Delegation in Executive
7. The judgment of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi and another^12 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. It is submitted that the preamble of the RBI Act read with Section 3 thereof provides sufficient guidance to the delegatee Central Government for exercising its powers. It is further submitted (^11) 1977 1 SCC 155 (^12) 1968 AIR 1232

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. It is submitted that in the present case, the delegation is to the Central Government and not to any subordinate office or department. The judgment of this Court in the case of Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia and others (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the said case, the delegation was to an Administrator and this Court found that the delegation to the Administrator was too wide and, thus, suffered from the vice of excessive delegation. It is submitted that, similarly, the judgment of this Court in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal Kuan, Delhi and another^13 (supra) also would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. in addition to the reliance placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills Delhi (^14) (supra) also relies on the judgments of this Court in the following cases: (i) Delhi Laws Act, In Re^15 (ii) M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India and others^16

8. The judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases of Yakus v. U.S.^17 is relevant in this case.
9. In a case of classificatory arbitrariness, the only test that will have to be satisfied is the rational nexus test, i.e. whether the action taken has a reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved. In the present case the object sought was to prevent the usage of high denomination notes for illegal transactions. 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. 2.3 The power exercised under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act has not been exercised in the manner as provided therein:
10. It is submitted that what is postulated under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act is that the Central Government may take a decision on the recommendation of the (^13) (1960) 2 SCR 671 (^14) 1968 AIR 1232 (^15) AIR 1951 SC 332: 1951 SCC 568 (^16) (2004) 11 SCC 766 (^17) 321 U.S. 414 (1944)

Central Board. It is submitted that in the present case, there was, in fact, a recommendation by the Central Board recommending demonetization. The decision by the Central Government has been taken after considering the said recommendation. It is, therefore, submitted that the procedure as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act stands duly complied with. It is submitted that the RBI is not only an expert body but a very special institution charged with a duty of conceiving and implementing various facets of economic and monetary policy. It is submitted that there cannot be a straitjacket formula in the discharge of its duty. It is a settled law that this Court should not interfere with the opinion of experts and leave it to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face. Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and another^18 and Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others.^19 In the case of Bajaj Hindustan Limited v. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Limited and another^20 , it was held that economic and fiscal regulatory measures are a field where Judges should encroach upon very warily as Judges are not experts in these matters.

11. It is expected that the Court must not proceed for a formal judgment when it cannot grant any effectual relief. In this respect, the judgments of United States Supreme Court in the cases of North Carolina v. Wayne Claude RICE^21 and Mills v. Green^22. 3 Whether the notification contravene the provisions of (Part XII. —Finance, Property, Contracts and Suits ) of the Constitution of Indicatia?
12. The notification is not violative of Part XII of the Constitution of Indicatia while the petitioner contended that the notification violates Art. 300A of the constitution of Indicatia which states “ No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” Therefore, the article protects an individual from interference by the State and dispossess a person of the property unless it is in accordance with the procedure established by law. (^18) (2008) 9 SCC 284 (^19) (2010) 3 SCC 640 (^20) 2006 (86) DRJ 59 (^21) 1 404 U.S. 244 (1971) (^22) 159 U.S. 651 (1895)

Though compensation is not expressly mentioned in the Article, in K.T Plantation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka^23 , the SC held that public purpose was a pre-condition for deprivation of a person of his property under Article 300A of the Constitution and the right to claim compensation was also inbuilt in that Article. In the case, the then CJI S.H. Kapadia said that - “The requirement of public purpose is invariably the rule for depriving a person of his property, violation of which is amenable to judicial review. Acquisition of property for a public purpose may meet with a lot of contingencies, like deprivation of livelihood, leading to violation of Article 21, but that per se is not a ground to strike down a statute or its provisions.”^24

13. The issues relating to 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.
14. By demonetization, the right vested in the notes was not taken away. The only restrictions were with regard to exchange of old notes with the new notes, which were also gradually relaxed from time to time. the right to property was sought to be taken away is without substance. In any case, even if there were reasonable restrictions on the said right, the said restrictions were in the public interest of curbing evils of fake currency, black money, drug trafficking & terror financing. 4 Whether 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 accordance with the law?
15. The decision of the government to print photo of God Kubera in the currency notes does not violate the basic principle of secularism or the constitutional mandate in any way or form and it is in accordance with the law. ‘Secularism’ means a State which does not recognize any religion as a State religion. It treats all religions equally. The concept of secularism was already implicit in the Constitution, "liberty of belief, faith and worship". Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution guarantee to every person the freedom of conscience (^23 ) (^24) hƩps://www.jaƟnverma.org/art-300a-right-to-property-is-not-a-fundamental-right

and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion. In St. Xavier College v. State of Gujarat^25 , the Supreme Court has said, "although the words 'secular State' are not expressly mentioned in the Constitution but there can be no doubt that Constitution-makers wanted to establish such a State and accordingly Articles 25 to 28 have been included in the Constitution. In the case S. R. Bommai v. Union of India^26 the Supreme Court has held that "secularism is the basic feature of the Constitution "In Aruna Roy v. Union of India^27 , the Supreme Court has said that secularism has a positive meaning that is developing, understanding and respect towards different religions.

16. While dealing with this issue it is noteworthy that several symbols used by different departments for example The YAKSHA & YAKSHI outside the RBI Office in New Delhi stands a pair of iconic statues carved out of Shivalik Sandstone. It took over 12 years (9155-
    1967. for Ramkinkar Baij to carve those gigantic Statues. According to the Hindu mythology Yaksha and Yakshi were demi gods who served Kuber the Lord of Wealth. The duty of Yakshas was to guard over Kuber’s gardens and treasures. In the modern context however the Yaksha and Yakshi symbolises the Industry and Agriculture.Yaksha holds a discus and a money bag in his hand which depicts the modern-day machine, a symbol of industry. Yakshi holds a flower and paddy cluster in her hands which symbolises the land and Agriculture. There in the present issue it is evident that the printing of image of God Kubera should not be related to hindu religion rather it should be looked through the lens of prosperity and wealth He represents wealth, prosperity, and glory. So the principle of Secularism is not violated in printing the image of God Kubera in notes.
17. Having the images of deities 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. It is yet another example of how making savvy decisions can benefit both the people and the country as a whole. The Indictian Constitution does not mandate any particular form or design of currency notes. Section 24 of the Reserve Bank of Indiactia (^25) (1974) AIR SC 1389 (^26) 1994, 2 SCR 644 (^27) AIR 2002 SC 3176

(RBI) Act only states that the Parliament may by law prescribe the form and design of currency notes. Therefore, the suggestion is not unconstitutional. 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.

18. Indonesia, a Muslim country with less than two per cent Hindus and more than 85 per cent Muslims, had images of Lord Ganesha on its currency notes. The Indonesian government has officially recognized six religions: Islam, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism. Over 87 per cent of the population follows Islam, making it the most populous Muslim nation. Only a meagre 1.7 per cent of the population are Hindus. Yet, the country has pictures of Lord Ganesha, Lord Shiva and many others on the currency notes. What is the harm of printing the photos of these hindu deities on the currency notes without referring to religious intent as such the RBI issues the note design and yaksha and yakshi who stands before RBI office it is in that aspect the photo shall be taken in consideration. 5 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?
19. No Fundamental right is absolute there are reasonable restriction attached to every article of the Constitution. In the Constituent Assembly (Constituent Assembly debates on 04.11.1948), Dr. B.R. Ambedkar has said; “I am sorry to say that the whole of the criticism about fundamental rights is based upon a misconception. In the first place, the criticism in so far as it seeks to distinguish fundamental rights from non- fundamental rights is not sound. It is incorrect to say that fundamental rights are absolute while non-fundamental rights are not absolute. The real distinction between the two is that non-fundamental rights are created by agreement

between parties while fundamental rights are the gift of the law. Because fundamental rights are the gift of the State it does not follow that the State cannot qualify them.”

20. The Indiactian Constitution attempts to limit the Fundamental Rights by setting limits within which they can be curtailed, in case of A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras^28 , Mukherjee, J. quoted “There cannot be any such thing as absolute and uncontrolled liberty wholly freed from restraint, for that would lead to anarchy and disorder. The possession and enjoyment of all the rights are subject to such reasonable restriction as may be deemed by governing authority essential to the safety, health, peace, general order, and morals of the community.The provision of a statute must be so construed as to make it effective and operative, on the principle “ut res magis valeat quam pereat”. It is, no doubt, true that if a statute is absolutely vague and its language wholly intractable and absolutely meaningless, the statute could be declared void for vagueness. This is not in judicial review by testing the law for arbitrariness or unreasonableness under Article 14; but what a court of construction, dealing with the language of a statute does in order to ascertain from, and accord to, the statute the meaning and purpose which the legislature intended for it. In Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester Racecourse Co.^29
21. The period for exchanging any amount of SBNs and depositing the same in the KYC compliant bank account without any limit or hindrance was 52 days, whereas the said period in the case of Jayantilal Ratanchand Shah^30 (supra) was only three days, which is much less as compared to the one provided by the impugned Notification. In the light of what has been held by the Constitution Bench in the case of Jayantilal Ratanchand Shah (supra), how the said period of 30 days could be construed to be unreasonable, unjust and violative of the petitioners’ fundamental rights.
22. As per Art. 21 which deals with Right to life and personal liberty, the current case of demonetization does not suffer from any procedural or substantive unreasonableness as the ‘due process of law’ was followed. The petitioner as stated that the Right to livelihood was violated this court in Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee 31 held that right to (^28) AIR 1950 SC 27 (^29) (1904) 2 Ch 352 : 16 TLR 429 : 83 LT 274 (^30) (1996) 9 SCC 650 (^31 1989)

carry on any trade and business is not included in the concept of Right to life and personal liberty. 5.2 Impugned order on limit on withdrawal is not violative of Right to Equality

30. The order limiting the bank account holders to withdraw of cash from the funds deposited in the bank as there was a reasonable classification. Ordinarily, such restrictions cannot be imposed. However, the current situation is different. It was obvious that scrapping the legal status of the available cash will result in a cash crunch. If the government has the power to declare that banknotes shall cease to be legal tender under Section 26(2), then it should also have the power to do other necessary things to make demonetization work. Therefore, imposing these restrictions, in one way, is inseparable from the government’s action under Section 26(2). To argue otherwise would render the government’s power under Section 26(2) meaningless. These restrictions can also be justified under Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which empowers the RBI to issue directions to banks in public interest to ensure that the interests of depositors are not compromised. Given the cash crunch, these restrictions will ensure that all depositors are able to access some cash for their basic needs. So, it is on the petitioner to prove that the law is unconstitutional. The petitioner till now has not been able to satisfy the court regarding the unconstitutionality of the law. Hence it is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the government action is constitutionally valid. 6 Whether the time requisite for such a large scale decision can be effectively taken within a week?
31. It can be seen that confidentiality and secrecy in such sort of measures is of paramount importance. It would thus show as to what great degree of confidentiality cannot be maintained and thus it a larger time period would have shown a breach of confidentiality, and any breach of confidentiality in such scenario would compromise the very purpose of Demonetization and when such purpose was to hamper or eliminate the purpose of illegal transactions, corruption, terror funding, benami transactions, drug trafficking and other such illegal activities involving black money.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

IN THE LIGHTS OF FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE PETITIONERS PRAY BEFORE THIS HON’BLE

COURT THAT IT BE PLEASED TO DECLARE:

1. That the Writ Petition u/A 32, COI is maintainable;
2. No issuance writ of Quo-Warranto shall be exercised against the government in lieu of the Impugned order as per reasonable restriction on FR.
3. To uphold the constitutionality of the order. Pass any order that this Hon‘ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. And for this Counsel(s) for the petitioner(s) shall duty bound pray forever Sd Counsel(s) for RESPONDENT(S)