Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT,

DELHI

Original Writ Jurisdiction

Section 32 of Constitution of India

PETITIONER

1. Somani

2. Dharmastan State Pensioners


Association.

Versus

RESPONDENT

1. Union of
India
..

2. Reserve Bank of
India.......................................

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTPage 1


MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

In the present case, both the Petitioners have approached the Honble Supreme Court wide
Article 321 of the Constitution of India to challenge the act of Demonetizing Rs 500 and Rs
1,000 notes from being the legal tender.

It is most humbly submitted before the Honble Court that Article 32 of the Constitution provides
for any order, direction or writ by the Apex Court only when there is a violation or infringement
of Fundamental Right. But, in the present case there is no prima facie violation of the
Fundamental Right of Petitioner due to this act of Demonetization of the Respondents.

Thence, the Honble Supreme Court exercises no jurisdiction wide Article 32 to hear the writ
petition filed by the Petitioners.

1 Article32: 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.
3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and
( 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.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTPage 2


MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTPage 3
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Dharmasthan is a State in the Indian Union. White Fort Clinic is a clinic situated in the capital
city of Trobay. Janeshwar is a Data Entry Operator in the State civil service. Janeshwars wife
Somani was under Dr Manu Naths care at White Fort Clinic from June 18, 2016. On
November 8, a day after the Prime Minister declared the decision to withdraw Rs 1000 and
500 notes from circulation, Somani underwent tests at the hospital, including sonography, and
was told the baby was due around December 7, 2016.
2. However, in the morning on November 9, Somani went into labour and the baby was
delivered in the care of relatives and neighbours. Since the baby, weighing all of 1.6 kg, was
born premature and Somani lost a lot of blood during the delivery, the family decided to rush
her to Dr Manu Nath. At the hospital, while Dr Nath gave primary care, she refused to admit
her because of her husband's inability to pay the entire Rs 6,000 deposit in currency notes.
Since the banks and ATMs were shut for the day as the government grappled with the
complications of removing old currency notes and replacing them with the new ones, the
family requested that they be given time for payment .But Dr Nath did not relent and sent
Somani and her baby back.
3. When the baby's condition worsened on November 10, the family rushed him to Dr Manu
Nath. But the infant died even as his mom and dad waited for their turn to see the doctor. The
Leading Newspaper, Dharmasthan Times published a report about the incident. It was
reported that when the reporter contacted Dr Nath, she admitted that the primary reason to
refuse admission to Somani and her baby was the family's inability to pay the full deposit.
She, however, also added that the baby required Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) care
and since her Clinic did not have the facility, she suggested that the family should move the
mother and the infant to Greater Trobay hospital. She said "I carried out the primary checkups
and the necessary intervention. But she could not pay for the treatment with valid currency, so
how could I admit her?".Somani confirmed the statement of Dr Nath and said that though my
husband went to the bank on 9th they allowed to withdraw only Rs 3000 and asked to come in
the next day.
4. On 30-11-2016 Somani filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution containing the
prayer that the Court may order the central Government to pay Rs 10,00,000 as palliative to
her for the gross violation of her fundamental right .On 1-12-2016 another writ petition was

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTPage 4


filed under Article 32 by the Dharmasthan State Pensioners Association pointing out
newspaper reports regarding the death of the persons standing in the queue of banks and
requesting the Court to declare that the decision on 7-11-2016 of the Government to
demonetize the currency notes of Rs 1000 and Rs500 and the Orders issued by the Reserve
Bank of India in this regard are illegal and unconstitutional.
5. The Supreme Court decided to hear both the petitions together. On behalf of the Union of
India and Reserve bank of India all the contentions are refuted. It is further contented that the
government policy to demonetise the currency notes of Rs 1000 and Rs 500 is a political
question which is not subject to judicial review. The case is posted for final hearing.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTPage 5


STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESENT WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE?

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESENT DECISION OF DEMONETIZATION ILLEGAL


AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

III. WHETHER OR NOT THE POLICY ENACTED BY THE RESPONDENTS A POLITICAL


QUESTION AND SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTPage 6


ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESENT WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE?


A. NO INFRINFGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BY THE RESPONDENTS

MAINTAINABLITY OF PETITION NO.1- In the present case, Petitioner No.1 has filed a writ
Petition by approaching the Honble Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
challenging the validity of Demonetizing Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes from being the legal tender.

It is pertinent to mention that the aforementioned Article can be invoked only when there is
infringement of Fundamental right of the person who ha s moved the writ petition.2
But, it is respectfully submitted that in the present case there is no infringement of Fundamental
right of the Petitioner No.1 done by the State.
Respondents have just performed their statutory duty by enacting a policy on 7 th November,
2016 of Demonetizing High Denomination Notes for achieving three fold purpose namely:
a) curbing the problem of Black Money Prevalent in the Economy.
b) curbing the circulation of fake currency that in India.
c) Lastly, to check the circulation of funding in terrorism activities.

It is contended that Petitioner No.1 is here complaining of Infringement of her Right to


Healthcare and get Medical Aid and right to life under article 21 of the constituion. The case of
the Petitioner is that because of the Demonetization the Petitioner and her baby were unable to
avail the Medical Services as there was unavailability of cash and due to which the Petitioners
husband couldnt arrange the payment which was required by Dr. Manu Nath.

In the present case there has been no violation of article 21 of the constitution. To establish the
violation of article 21 , the act should be subjected to the equality test of article 14 and the test of

2 Common Cause v U.O.I, (1996) 6 SCC 667: AIR 1999 SC 2979; Andhra Industrial works v. Chief
Controller of imports, AIR 1974 SC 1539

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTPage 7


reasonableness under article 19.3 Article 14 ensures fairness4 and guarantees against
arbitrariness5. It provides that every action of the government must be informed by reasons and
guided by public interest6. Article 19 provides that a restriction can be characterized to be
reasonable if it strikes a balance between the fundamental right and restriction imposed thereon.7
In the present case the Union of India was facing continuously the problem of fake currency
which in many ways chopped economic growth in the country. The Supreme Court, in its earlier
order, stated clearly that it is the duty of the government to provide the people of the country
with necessary conditions for leading a peaceful life as promised by the Constitution under Art.
21.8 The State has an obligation to preserve the life and livelihood of every person. That which
alone can make it possible to live must be declared to be an integral component of the right to
life.9The respondent has only followed the said order. Hence, it is submitted that there has been
no violation as such on the part of the government.
It is a matter of fact that reasonable restriction were imposed by the government and that was
necessary for public good and this did not no way infringed the fundamneatl right on the part of
the state. The expression reasonable restriction signifies that the limitation imposed on a
3 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.

4 D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982; Mahesh Chandra
v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn, AIR 1993 SC 935

5Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2000 SC 3313

6, Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy, Represented by its Partner Shri Kasturi Lal, Jammu and Ors.
Vs.: State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr. AIR 2000 Guj 160; LIC v. Consumer
Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811.

7
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689.

8
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.

9
Paramanand Katara vs Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039( para 7&8)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTPage 8


person in the enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond
what is required in the interest of the public.10
There has to be a nexus between the restriction and the object sought to be achieved and the
object must not, itself, be repugnant to the letter or the spirit of the Constitution.11
In order to be reasonable the restriction must have a reasonable relation with the object which
the legislation seeks to achieve, and must not go in excess of that object.12
The reasonableness of a restriction has to be determined in an objective manner and the
standpoint of the interest of the general public and not from the point of view of the person upon
whom the restrictions are imposed. In other words, a law cannot be said to be unreasonable
merely because, in a given case, it operate harshly, even of the persons affected by petty traders.13
. Since, Article 21 envisages a right to life and personal liberty of a person, which not merely
guarantees the right to continuance of a persons existence but a quality of life, and therefore,
State is casted upon a duty to protect the rights of the citizen in discharge of its constitutional
obligation in the larger public interest, guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

MAINTAINABILITY OF PETITION NO.2

10
P.P. Enterprises V. Union of India. 1982 S.C.C.(Cr.)341

11
Deepak Yadav Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

12
Kochuni v State of Madras, (196)3 SCR 887 (1914)

13
Pathumma v. State of Kerala; AIR 1978 Sc 771 (para 14).

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTPage 9


Petition No.2 has been filed by Dharmasthan Pensioners Association pointing out to newspaper
reports which states about Death of people standing in queues outside the Banks and again
challenging the legality of the policy decision of the Respondents.
Basically, a Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the Petitioner No.2 who tend to bring out
the problems of unrepresented, downtrodden and weak class of people.
In the case State of Uttranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal14 the court has stated essentials of
Public Interest Litigation which have not been fulfilled in Petition filed by Petitioner No.2
(i)Credentials of the Applicant
(ii) prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him and
(iii) the information not being vague and indefinite.
It is pertinent to mention that Petitioner No.2 is a institution which filed a petition as a matter of
Public Interest after pointing out to a newspaper report which further raises a question before the
Honble Court as to whether there is prima facie correctness of nature of nature of information
given by the Petitioner No.2. The newspaper report may not be authentic and frivolous and thus
quoting the aforementioned landmark judgment where apex court cautioned against entertaining
petitions based on unconfirmed newspaper reports, without verifying their authencity. Thus, it is
contended before the Honble Court that it should filter the frivolous petitions and accordingly
adjudge the present matter.
In the case of B. Singh v. UOI15 it has been held by the Supreme Court that Any PIL should not
encroach upon sphere reserved by the Constitution to Executive and Legislature. It is desirable
for courts to filter out frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs.
In the case of BALCO Employees Union v. U.O.I16 the Supreme Court has made it clear that the
public interest litigation is not meant to be weapon to challenge the financial and Economic
decisions which are taken up by the government in the exercise of their administrative power

14
AIR 2010 SC 2550.

15
AIR 2004 SC 1923

16
2002 SC 350

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTPage 10


until and unless there is violation of any Fundamental Right and in the present case motive was
not to infringe fundamental rights but to curb the menace which is there in Indian Economy due
to presence of Black Money.
Thus, it is contended that the Petition No.2 is also not maintainable before the Honble Court.as
there is no breach of fundamental rights..

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTPage 11


. so, she must ask the Court for action against the Dr. Manu Nath due to whose negligence the
petitioner and her one day old infant did not get the Medical Treatment. Thus, it is most
respectfully submitted before the Honble Court that it is due to the negligent act of Dr. Manu
Nath to serve his patients in a prudent manner that lead to the death of infant and also infringed
the fundamental right of petitioner to get the medical treatment and also infringed Right to Life
of the Infant. Hence, it is to be noted that in the present case Dr. Manu Nath is the Infringer of
the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner and not the State. Thus, the writ Petition filed by
Petitioner No.1 is not maintainable before the Honble Court.

Section 7(1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934- The Central government may from time to
time give such directions to the bank as it may, after consultation with the Governor consider
necessary in the public interest.

for probably three reasons i.e.-


-Firstly, for curbing the problem of Black Money Prevalent in the Economy.
-Secondly, for curbing the circulation of fake currency that in India.
-Lastly, to check the circulation of funding in terrorism activities.
Thus, the Respondents have performed their official duty by enacting the laws so as to bring
equality among different sections of the Indian Economy and so as to make available
Fundamental Right to Equality guaranteed to the people of India under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
It is pertinent to mention that The main objective of the policy of demonetization is to bring
equality in the nation by curbing various frivolous activities which were going on in the country
and thus, there was no other motive of squeezing the money supply and putting restrictions on
withdrawals. If these restrictions would have not been allowed so as to withdraw only Rs 3000 a
day and all the banks and ATMs were made to shut down for the following two days dated
November 8th and 9th, 2016 so it would have scrapped the actual motive of demonetization and

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTPage 12


people who had in their hand amount of black money, so, it would have made easy for them to
exchange their notes and get converted their black money into white.
In the case of Jayantilal Ratanchand Shah vs Reserve Bank Of India & Ors17
the validity of Demonetization Act, 1978 was challenged and there the Supreme Court took note
of the Preamble to the Demonetisation Act which reads as follows:

Whereas the availability of high denomination bank notes facilities 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 demonetize high denomination
bank notes.

The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of the Demonetisation Act and held that From
the above preamble it is manifest 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. Considering
the evil the above Act sought to remedy it cannot be said that it was not enacted for a public
purpose.

The Court also repelled the Petitioners contentions that the Act was unreasonable and violative
of their fundamental rights as under and upheld the validity of the said act even if it was creating
menace among public by saying that the actual motive was for public good and is not violative of
any fundamental right.

Thenceforth, it is contended before the Honble Court that is not due to the act of Respondents
that there is any infringement of Fundamental Right of the Petitioner. Hence, Petition No.1 is not
maintainable.

17
JT 1996 (7), 68;1996 SCALE (5)741.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTPage 13


In the case of Comon Cause v. UOI18 it has been held that Whether Legislative or administrative
measures taken by the Ccentral Government Effective or not is not for the court but for the
Central Government and parliament itself to consider.Hence, it is implied that the Courts should
not entertain the PIL even it is for Public purpose if such a policy is enacted by the Central
Government.Similarly, in the present case policy has been enacted by the Central Government
and RBI for public good thus Courts should not interfere to consider any other matter.

18
AIR 2010 SC 3351

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTPage 14


II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESENT DECISION OF DEMONETIZATION ILLEGAL
AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE POLICY ENACTED BY THE RESPONDENTS A
POLITICAL QUESTION AND SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTPage 15