SC seeks explanation from center on deadline extension for old notes

The Supreme Court has asked the Center to explain whether it would give another window to such citizens who could not meet the December 31 deadline to deposit scrapped Rs 1, 000 and Rs, 500 notes due to genuine difficulty, as promised by PM Narendra Modi in his November 8 speech. The centre must make the clarifications by April 11. Many petitioners lined up before the apex court and explained their genuine difficulty in meeting the December 31 and mentioned the Prime Minister's promise that scrapped currency would be accepted by the RBI from December 31 till March 31. A bench consisting of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justices D Y Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul told the Centre, & quot You must understand that these people are in dire straits. If they cannot establish the genuineness of the delay in depositing scrapped currency, they would be liable for prosecution.& quot & quot The PM's speech as well as the notification that followed up immediately after that had promised to provide a window to people in such difficulty. But the ordinance did not provide any window except for NRIs and those Indians who were travelling abroad at that time. These people hoped that they will get another chance but the ordinance issued on the last day of deadline on December 31 suddenly closed that window. Everyone heard the PM and believed that PM's words cannot be taken back.& quot The bench sought an explanation from attorney general Mukul Rohatgi who said, & quot If the PM says something and the law (ordinance) says something else, then the law will prevail. The notification has been replaced by the ordinance. Parliament gave the government the discretion whether or not to open a window for citizens after December 31. The government decided not to. Today, we are faced with a law. Neither the PM nor the RBI has discretion to give any more windows because it found large scale abuse by many including petrol pump owners who deposited money only in Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 notes.& quot The bench said, & quot You argue as if whatever you do is final. That is unacceptable.& quot It wondered whether the sudden closure of the promised window had something to do with the expected outcome of demonetization going awry. & quot The demonetization exercise was for a purpose. Was that purpose lost?& quot it asked. Among the petitioners was a woman who gave birth on November 4 and was discharged from hospital on January 24. The AG said if the petitioners withdrew their pleas, he would promise that there would be no prosecution. But the petitioner's counsel said if the PM's promise had no value, what use was the AG's promise. Not elaborating on it any further, the bench issued notice to the Union government and the RBI to explain whether they were contemplating giving citizens, who could explain their failure to deposit scrapped currency by December 31, another chance to do so. & quot If the government decides to exercise its discretion not to do so, then it must explain its position,& quot the bench said. It refused to pass any interim order protecting petitioners from possible prosecution for holding demonetized currency notes.

It is a true fact that a lot of citizens were unable to deposit their cash due to some or the other completely genuine reasons. Since the government had announced that it would provide a second chance to such people, it must abide by such promise. Medical conditions are one of such reasons which are not necessarily under human control. The government must identify the genuineness of such case and accordingly allow the citizen to deposit the cash.