Does the notification contravene the provisions of Article 300(A) of the Constitution

It has been humbly submitted before this Honble Court, that the gazette notification of
Demonetization is not in violation of the right to property guaranteed to the citizens under
Article 300A of the Constitution of Cadbridge.

It is submitted that on 3rd January 2017, the Prime Minister of Cadbridge, Dr. Moody announced
through a gazetted notification that all notes of the denomination of 500 and 1,500 Cadbridge
Rupees (hereinafter referred to as CRC) that were printed prior to 2015 will cease to be legalised
tenders1. This decision resulted in 90% of the notes in circulation which were pre-2015 print
being derecognized as legal tenders. To deal with the cash crunch in the economy the people
were instructed that they would not be allowed to withdraw more than Cadbridge Rupees 3,500
(hereinafter referred to as CR) from their accounts per day until further notice 2. {change
language}.

It is also submitted that Article 300A of the Constitution of Cadbridge is not a fundamental right3
but a constitutional right and a human right4. A citizen can approach under Article 325 the
Supreme Court if there is any violation of Fundamental Rights of him or anybody.

Article 32(1)6 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution. While Article 32(4)7
guarantees the right provided by Article 32 shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
by the Constitution.

Though Article 300A is not a Fundamental Right, nevertheless, it does not make much of a
difference except that a writ petition is not maintainable under Article 32 in the Supreme Court

1 Factsheet 5.
2 Factsheet 7.
3 State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan, AIR 1983 SC 803 (para 2); Vimlaben Ajithbai Patel v. Vatslaben

Ashokbhai Patel, AIR 2008 SC 2675: (2008) 4 SCC 649; Karnataka State Financial Corpn. v. N. Naramsimhaiah,
AIR 2008 SC 1797;
4 Union of India v. Martin Lottery Agency Ltd., (2009) 12 SCC 209; Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super

Cassette Industries Ltd. (2008) 13 SCC 30; N. Padmanabhan v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, AIR 2008 SC 2834:
(2008) 15 SCC 517; State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, (2009) 8 SCC 46;
5 Article 32- Remedies for Enforcement of Rights conferred by this Part.
6 Article 32(1)- The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement

of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

7 Article 32(4)-The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise

provided for by this Constitution.

to vindicate the right under Article 300A. A person challenging violation of Article 300A must
go to a High Court under Article with his writ8.

Thus it is submitted that Article 300A is not a fundamental right, but a constitutional right. An
aggrieved individual cannot approach the Supreme Court of Cadbridge under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Cadbridge. Article 32 is invoked only when there has been a violation of the
fundamental rights of the citizen.

Thus in the presence of such a scenario, a person challenging violation of Article 300A, which is
not a fundamental right, cannot approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 for justice.
Instead the aggrieved individual can only approach the High Court under Article 226 with his
writ petition.

In the present scenario, the Government of Cadridge passed the notification, demonetizing notes
of valuation of CR 500 and CR 1000. The parties aggrieved because of such an excellent
measure cannot approach the Supreme Court of Cadbridge directly under Section 32 of the
Constitution of Cadbridge, but instead the parties ought to have approached the High Court of
their respective states under Article 226 of the Constitution of Cadbridge.

AUTHORITY OF LAW

It has been humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the action of the respondents no
way affects the right of property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of Cadbridge. The
action of the respondents is well within the four corners of the power conferred upon it under the
provisions of the Reserve Bank of Cadbridge Act (hereinafter referred to as RBC) and the
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as BRA) and therefore, is clearly statutory
in nature.

It is submitted that RBC has the powers to issue directions under Section 35A9 of the BRA to
any banking company in particular or to the banking companies in public interest or in the
interest of the banking policy or to prevent the affairs of the banking company being conducted

8 Jain M.P. , INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,(2014), 7TH Edititon, Lexis Nexis, Gurgoan.
9 Section 35A- Power of the Reserve Bank to give directions.
in a manner detrimental to the interest of its depositors or in a manner harmful to the interest of
the banking company.

A public interest in the aforementioned definition was stated in Prakash Amichand Shah v. State
of Gujrat10 by the Supreme Court that,

In order to appreciate the contentions of the appellant it is necessary to look, at the object of
the legislation in question as a whole. The object of the Act is not just acquiring a bit or land
here or a bit of land there for some public purpose. It consists of several activities which have as
their ultimate, object the orderly development of an urban area. It envisages the preparation of a
development plan, allocation of land for various private and public uses, preparation of a Town
Planning Scheme and making provisions for future development of the area in question. The
various aspects of a Town Planning Scheme have already been set out. On the final Town
Planning Scheme coming into force under Section 53 of the Act there is an automatic vesting of
all lands required by the local authority, unless otherwise provided, in the local authority. It is
not a case where the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have to be set in motion either
by the Collector or by the Government.

It is further submitted that the BRA envisages action to be taken by the RBI when RBI is
satisfied that circumstances warrant such action. Section 5(ca)11 of the BRA defines "banking
policy" as any policy which is specified from time to time by the Reserve Bank of India in the
interest of the banking system or in the interest of monetary stability or sound economic growth,
having due regard to the interests of the depositors, the volume of deposits and other resources of
the bank and the need for equitable allocation and the efficient use of these deposits and
resources.

10(1986) 1 SCC 581

11banking policy means any policy which is specified from time to time by the Reserve Bank in the interest
of the banking system or in the interest of monetary stability or sound economic growth, having due regard to
the interests of the depositors, the volume of deposits and other resources of the bank and the need for
equitable allocation and the efficient use of these deposits and resources
In the matter of Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. RBI12, has observed at page
388 as under:

"The RBI is a bankers' bank and lender of the last resort. Its objective is to ensure monetary
stability in India and to operate and regulate the credit system of the country. It has, therefore,
to perform a delicate balance between the need to preserve and maintain the credit structure of
the country by strengthening the rule as well as apparent creditworthiness of the banks
operating in the country and the interest of the depositors. In underdeveloped country like ours,
where majority population are illiterate and poor and are not conversant with banking
operations and in underdeveloped money and capital market with mixed economy, the
Constitution charges the State to prevent exploitation and so the RBI would play both
promotional and regulatory roles. Thus the RBI occupies place of pre-eminence" to ensure
monetary discipline and to regulate the economy or the credit- system of the country as an expert
body. It also advises the government in public finance and monetary regulations. The banks or
non-banking institutions shall have to regulate their operations in accordance with, not only as
per the provisions of the Act but also the rules and directions or instructions issued by the RBI in
exercise of the power thereunder, Chapter 3-B expressly deals with regulations of deposit and
finance received by the Residuary Non-Banking Companies (RNBCs') The directions, therefore,
are, statutory regulations.

Therefore it is submitted that in the present scenario where about 90% of the value of currency in
circulation is being exchanged, liquidity rate has to be maintained in the country and at the same
time funds would also be required to satisfy the normal withdrawals. RBI has the power to
control withdrawals having due regard to the interests of the depositors, the volume of deposits
and other resources of the bank and the need for equitable allocation and the efficient use of
these deposits and resources.

12(1992) 2 SCC 343; Joseph Kuruvilla Vellukunnel v. Reserve Bank of India, 1962 Supp 3 SCR 632 : AIR 1962 SC
1371 : (1962) 32 Comp Cas 514J.
Money as Property

Further it is humbly submitted that demonetization of currency notes will not lead to the
Government acquiring permanent ownership of the currency notes belonging to an individual.

In the case of Jayantilal Ratanchand Shah v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors13, the Honble
Supreme Court of India negatived the contentions raised by the petitioner, where it was argued
that High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) Act 14 of 1978 was violative of Article
19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India and with reference to Article 31 of the Constitution of India.
The main contention of the petitioners was that the currency notes were the properties of the
persons who are holding the same and demonetization of the same would amount to compulsory
acquisition of the property of the individual. The Court negatived all contentions raised with
reference to Article 19(1)(f) as well as Article 31 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the
challenge made against the said Act. These views were supported by the Madras High Court in
the recent matter of, M. Seeni Ahamed v. Union of India15.

In the present scenario the whole process of demonetization is a temporary one aimed at
eliminating corruption, black money etc. The Government has no intention to acquire the
property of the citizens. The ownership right of the declared currency will remain with the
citizens themselves, as the citizens get a right to exchange their defunct currency notes in lieu of
new ones.

13 681 1996 SCALE (5)741.

14 High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) Act of 1978.
15 (2017) 1MLJ1.