The Supreme Court once more declines to categorise Ashwini Upadhyay’s petition opposing the exchange of 2,000 notes without identification as urgent.

The Supreme Court once more declines to categorise Ashwini Upadhyay’s petition opposing the exchange of 2,000 notes without identification as urgent.

The Supreme Court of India declined to urgently list a plea filed by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay challenging a Reserve Bank of India (RBI) notification. The notification allowed the exchange of ₹2,000 currency notes without requiring any identity proof. The vacation bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal stated that there was no urgency in the matter and that the direction given by an earlier bench on June 1 to list the case only after the court’s summer vacation should be followed.

Upadhyay’s plea raised concerns about the lack of transparency regarding the amount of money that went into bank accounts during the exchange process. He argued that the exchange of ₹2,000 notes would allow black money to be converted into white money, potentially facilitating money laundering. Justice Bose responded by stating that everyone pays taxes, and Justice Bindal added that income tax, GST, and other taxes are paid by everyone.

Upadhyay questioned whether the matter was less important than a recent Allahabad High Court order on the Mangalik status of women, which the Supreme Court took suo motu notice of and held a sitting on Saturday. He suggested that the registrar could seek directions from the Chief Justice of India (CJI), but the Court refused to accede to the request, stating that the matter had to end somewhere.

The Supreme Court‘s previous decision to decline the urgent listing of Upadhyay’s appeal against the Delhi High Court’s order upholding the RBI notification means that the court did not consider the plea to be of immediate importance or urgency. The apex court determined that it was not necessary to hear the case during the vacation period and instead directed Upadhyay to bring the matter to the attention of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) when the court reopened after the summer break.

During vacation periods, the Supreme Court typically operates with a limited number of judges and focuses primarily on urgent matters that require immediate attention. Non-urgent cases, or cases that do not present significant legal issues, are usually scheduled for hearing when the court resumes its regular functioning.

The Delhi High Court, in its verdict on May 29, had reasoned that the ₹2,000 notes had served their purpose, and the decision to withdraw them was a policy matter that should not be interfered with by the courts.

Upadhyay’s appeal argues that the High Court ruling contradicts the objectives of legislation aimed at addressing black money, counterfeiting, and money laundering. It further contends that the RBI notification affects the rule of law in India and violates the rights to equality and dignity, as it allegedly allows banks to convert black money into white money.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to urgently list the plea means that the case will be considered after the court’s summer vacation, following the direction given by the earlier bench. The outcome of the case will determine whether the RBI notification allowing the exchange of ₹2,000 currency notes without identity proof stands or is deemed contrary to the law.

It’s important to note that the explanation provided here is based on the available information, and I do not have access to the specific details or context beyond what you’ve shared. Legal proceedings can be complex, and a comprehensive understanding often requires a thorough examination of all the arguments, evidence, and legal principles involved.