The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench on Wednesday issued notice on all intervening applications and fresh petitions challenging the Centre’s decision to demonetise Rs 500 and 1,000 notes in 2016, and consider whether the issue of demonetisation is academic, Live Law reported. The Centre’s counsel and the Reserve Bank of India has sought time to file their respective affidavits.

The next hearing will be on November 9.

A five-judge bench headed by Justice S A Nazeer, and comprising Justices B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and B V Nagarathna, was hearing the case.

Also Read: Post demonetisation, notes in circulation on rise; so are digital payments

On November 8, 2016, the Union government had issued a notification declaring that all Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes were no longer legal and valid currency and thereby discontinued the circulation, which came to be known as demonetisation.

On November 9, 2016, advocate Vivek Narayan Sharma had challenged the constitutionality of the scheme and the manner with which it was implemented at the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court Observer said.

A three-bench judge comprising then Chief justice TS Thakur, Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud had heard the matter.

On December 16, 2016, the Bench ordered a stay on all High Court challenges to the demonetisation scheme and asked that all cases be transferred to the apex court, and referred to a five-judge Constitution bench, according to a report by news agency PTI.

The questions in the reference order included whether the notification dated November 8, 2016 is ultra vires provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and does the notification contravene the provisions of Article 300 (A) of the Constitution, which says no person shall be deprived of one’s property save by the authority of law.

Attorney General R Venkataramani submitted that unless the Act on demonetisation is challenged in a proper perspective, the issue will essentially remain academic. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Centre, said that the apex court’s time must not be wasted on “academic issues”.

Also Read: Five years since demonetisation: Cash back in favour, beats pre-note ban ratio

Objecting to Mehta’s submission, senior lawyer Shyam Divan, representing petitioner Vivek Narayan Sharma, said he was surprised at the words “waste of constitutional bench’s time” as the earlier bench had said these cases must be placed before a constitution bench.

Senior advocate P Chidambaram, appearing for one of the parties, said the issue has not become academic and it has to be decided by the top court, adding this kind of demonetisation requires a separate act of Parliament, as per the report from PTI.