#Justice B R Gavai

[life-and-health-insurance]

Supreme Court Slam Private Hospitals Loots

Big news! Supreme Court wants to regulate prices for heart surgery (and potentially more) in India! Does this mean the same cost in private and government hospitals?

The video dives into the Clinical Establishment Act of 2010 and the recent Supreme Court ruling. ⚖️ Will it impact quality in private hospitals? Share your thoughts in the comments!

[seemabhatnagar]

Supreme Court will not interfere in matters where call is to be taken by the Executive

Balwant Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

The Supreme Court (SC) of India dismissed the Criminal Petition of the Accused Balwant Singh one of the accused in the #CriminalConspiracy which had resulted in the #assassination of the then #ChiefMinister of #Punjab, Prakash Singh Badal. Further the Apex Court also didn’t find it appropriate to give #access to the #file of #Ministry of #HomeAffairs to the Petitioner.

This verdict was pronounced on 03.05.2023 by the Division Bench of the Apex Court comprising Hon’ble Justice B R Gavai J, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol J.

The present Criminal petition was filed for calling the record of #mercypetition submitted on 25.03.2012 seeking clemency from the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution of India (COI). And to commute the death sentence into life imprisonment because of inordinate delay in deciding the mercy petition.

Fact: Balwant Singh, the petitioner in this case, is one of the accused who had hatched  criminal conspiracy along with 8 others (Jagtar Singh Hawara, Gurmeet Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Shamsher Singh and Nasib Singh.) and had executed bomb blast on 31.08.95 in which Chief Minister of Punjab Prakash Singh Badal along with 16 others lost their lives and many were injured.

The Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence pertaining to Sections 120-B, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860and u/s.3(b), 4(b) and 5(b) r/w 6 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and awarded death sentence.  

In reference High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused (Petitioner Balwant Singh) but commuted the death sentence of Jagtar Singh into life imprisonment. However Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed Appeal before the Supreme Court against the commuting of death sentence into life imprisonment in the case of Jagtar Singh which is pending for consideration.

Other co-accused preferred appeal against the judgement of the High Court (HC) before the Apex Court but the present petitioner didn’t preferred any appeal or any Mercy Petition before the President of India.

The mercy petition pending before the President of India is filed by Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee (SGPC) on behalf of the Petitioner Balwant Singh.

Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 27.09.2019 initiated a proposal on the occasion of commemoration of 550th Birth Anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev Ji proposing special remission and release of prisoners.

Submission of the Petitioner Counsel:

Communication dt.27.09.2019 of Ministry pf Home Affairs, Government of India provided that 8 Sikh persons be given special remission under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and be released from prison and a further proposal for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment of one prisoner (petitioner) is to be processed under Article 72 of the Constitution of India.

Till date no decision has been taken.

As the State and the Union of India have not been able to decide the Mercy Petition which is pending for more than 10 years, this Court itself may grant that commutation.

Submission of the Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG)

Petitioner having expressed in specific terms that he has no faith in the judiciary of this country and that he did not regret at all being part of the crime and further has used contemptuous terms before the High Court which have been duly recorded, wherefore he does not deserve any mercy in view of his conduct.

Till date the petitioner himself has not submitted any Mercy Petition. The Mercy Petition dated 25.03.2012 was submitted by the SGPC. When the petitioner has not filed any Mercy Petition himself, there is no question of granting any relief as claimed.

Ministry of Home Affairs, upon material consideration of various reports from its different branches, has come to the conclusion that the consideration may be deferred as it could have an impact of compromising the security of the nation & creating law and order situation

Criminal Appeals filed by the co-accused Lakhwinder Singh & Jagtar Singh are still pending before this Court, as such consideration of any Mercy Petition would arise only after disposal of those appeals.

Criminal Appeal filed by CBI is also pending against the commuting of death sentence into lfe imprisonment in case of Jagtar Singh.

The decision in these appeals pending before this Court would be a relevant material and while considering the Mercy Petition the same could have a bearing. As such it would be appropriate to await the decision of the pending appeals.

There is no delay in consideration of the Mercy Petition. It is only after 27.09.2019 that the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, required the State Government to send the proposal for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment under Article 72 of the COI.

Considering the prevailing situation, a decision has been taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs that it would be appropriate to defer taking any decision on the Mercy Petition as it could have serious potential of compromising the security of the nation or creating a law and order situation.

Observation of the Apex Court:

Delay in decision on Mercy Petition can’t be sustained.

Petitioner himself never submitted Mercy Petition. Mercy Petition on behalf of petitioner Balwant Singh was submitted by the SGPC.

The Ministry of Home Affairs communication dated 27.09.2019, is the proposal for considering the commutation of the death sentence of the petitioner was started and a decision was taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs to keep the same pending till disposal of the pending appeals before this Court, filed by the co-accused as well as by the CBI.

Deferring the decision by Ministry of Home Affairs amounts to a decision declining to grant the same for the present.

Since Ministry of Home Affairs, upon material consideration of various reports from its different branches, has come to the conclusion that the consideration may be deferred as it could have an impact of compromising the security of the nation or creating law and order situation.

It is within the domain of the executive to take a call on such sensitive issues.

This Court does not deem it appropriate to issue any further directions.

Seema Bhatnagar

[uniqueeval]

Excise policy case: Supreme Court to hear Kavitha's bail plea on August 27

Supreme Court to hear BRS leader K. Kavitha’s bail plea in a money laundering case linked to the Delhi excise policy scam. File | Photo Credit: The Hindu The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Tuesday (August 27, 2024) the bail plea by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K. Kavitha in a money laundering case linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. A bench of justices B. R. Gavai and…

[tfgadgets]

Supreme Court On Difficult Conditions For Release

New Delhi: Granting bail but imposing excessive conditions on an individual is like taking away with the left hand what was given by the right, the Supreme Court observed on Thursday while stating that “excessive bail is no bail” The bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by a man who had 13 cases filed against him for various offences including cheating. In…

[12blogmk]

Journalists: Supreme Court shields 2 journalists in Adani case | India News

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim protection to two journalists who were summoned by Gujarat police for their article alleging stock manipulation by the Adani group and directed the police not to take any coercive action against them.Granting relief to the scribes, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishraissued notice to Gujarat government seeking its response…

[blogynews]

"Unveiling the Unexpected: Supreme Court Shocks Nation by Granting Bail in Shiv Sena Leader's Murder Case | India News"

The Supreme Court has granted bail to an individual who was accused of conspiring to murder a local Shiv Sena leader in Maharashtra in 2020. The decision was made by a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, C T Ravikumar, and Sanjay Kumar. The court took into consideration the fact that other co-accused in the case had already been granted bail. Rahul Umesh Shetty, the former Lonavala unit chief of…

[blogynewz]

"Unveiling the Unexpected: Supreme Court Shocks Nation by Granting Bail in Shiv Sena Leader's Murder Case | India News"

The Supreme Court has granted bail to an individual who was accused of conspiring to murder a local Shiv Sena leader in Maharashtra in 2020. The decision was made by a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, C T Ravikumar, and Sanjay Kumar. The court took into consideration the fact that other co-accused in the case had already been granted bail. Rahul Umesh Shetty, the former Lonavala unit chief of…

[blogynewsz]

"Unveiling the Unexpected: Supreme Court Shocks Nation by Granting Bail in Shiv Sena Leader's Murder Case | India News"

The Supreme Court has granted bail to an individual who was accused of conspiring to murder a local Shiv Sena leader in Maharashtra in 2020. The decision was made by a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, C T Ravikumar, and Sanjay Kumar. The court took into consideration the fact that other co-accused in the case had already been granted bail. Rahul Umesh Shetty, the former Lonavala unit chief of…

[jhapalitimes]

LIVE: Supreme Court Shields Teesta Setalvad, Halts Arrest Order for One Week

In a significant late-night development, the Supreme Court has come to the aid of social activist Teesta Setalvad, safeguarding her from imminent arrest. The apex court has stayed the Gujarat High Court's order, which had rejected Setalvad's plea for regular bail and directed her to surrender promptly. The case pertains to allegations of fabricating evidence to falsely implicate innocent individuals in the post-Godhra riot cases of 2002. During a special late-night hearing, a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, and Dipankar Datta expressed concerns over the denial of sufficient time for Setalvad to appeal against the High Court's decision. The bench emphasized that even an ordinary criminal is entitled to some form of interim relief and questioned the haste in denying such an opportunity to Setalvad. Meanwhile, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman highlighted the remarkable progress made by public sector banks (PSBs) under the government's initiatives. She revealed that PSBs' net profit has nearly tripled in the past nine years, soaring to an impressive Rs 1.04 lakh crore in the current fiscal year, compared to Rs 36,270 crore in FY2014. Sitharaman stressed the need to sustain this momentum to invigorate the economy further. In France, the unrest stemming from the killing of a 17-year-old by the police continues to grip several cities, despite the deployment of a massive police presence. Rioting, arson, and looting persist, with damages observed across various locations, including Paris, Marseille, Lyon, and even French territories overseas. The government, however, expressed a glimmer of hope, suggesting that the security measures implemented are beginning to curb the violence. Nonetheless, the widespread destruction remains a cause for concern. Tragically, a 54-year-old individual lost their life in French Guiana after being struck by a stray bullet. These events reflect the multifaceted landscape of today's news, encompassing legal battles for justice, economic strides, and the social challenges faced by nations. Stay tuned for further updates on these unfolding stories.Read More:-  LIVE: Supreme Court Shields Teesta Setalvad, Halts Arrest Order for One Week Read the full article

[creative-pens]

Big Relief For Final Year Medical Students Back From Ukraine

The centre informed SC that students can give and clear the examination within a period of one year. Part I, followed by Part II after one year. Part II will be allowed only after Part I is cleared.

New Delhi: The central government on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that students who returned to India from Ukraine will be offered a single chance to clear the MBBS Final, both Part I and Part II Examinations without enrolling in any existing medical colleges.

"The students may be offered a single chance to clear the MBBS Final, both Part I and Part II Examinations (Both Theory and Practical) as per existing NMC Syllabus and guidelines without being enrolled in any of the existing Indian Medical Colleges. They can give and clear the examination within a period of one year. Part I, followed by Part II, after one year. Part II will be allowed only after Part I is cleared," the centre informed the court.

ASG Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the centre, apprised these facts to the bench of Justices B R Gavai and Vikram Nath.

The centre informed SC that students can give and clear the examination within a period of one year. Part I, followed by Part II after one year. Part II will be allowed only after Part I is cleared

The government also informed the Supreme court that theory examination could be conducted centrally and physically, on the pattern of the Indian MBBS examination and practical could be conducted by some designated government medical colleges, assigned the responsibility.

Centre apprised the SC that after clearing these two examinations, they would have to complete two years of compulsory rotatory internship, the first year of which will be free and the second year paid as has been decided by NMC for previous cases.

It also informed SC that the committee has emphasised that this option be strictly a one-time option and not become a basis for similar decisions in future and shall be applicable for present matters only.

The Central Government also apprised the top court about the committee, which deliberated on the issues as directed by the Supreme Court on three occasions January 11, February 2 and March 2.

At the meeting held on February 2 and March 2, the representative from the various states and Union Territories along with the NMC also joined the meeting via virtual conference and expressed their views on the issues raised.

The States voiced their reservation about the quality of education and training the FMGs might have and hence had reservations about accommodating them in colleges mid-way during the course. The committee, in compliance with the order of the top Court, has recommended with regard to addressing the issue of students pursuing medical education abroad in Ukraine/China and have returned in their penultimate year and studied online classes after return, the centre said.

After hearing the submission made by the Centre, the Supreme court disposed of a batch of petitions filed by medical students who returned back to India from Ukraine.

The Court had earlier asked the Union Government to constitute a committee of experts to find out solutions for the students' situations. The court remarked that these students can be a national asset when the country is facing a dearth of doctors.

The court was also considering a batch of petitions filed by the students, who completed the courses online and secured completion certificates from foreign universities but could not complete clinical training.

The court had observed that these students could not undergo their clinical training in their foreign universities due to unforeseen events and they cannot go back to their universities because they have subsequently completed their courses.

Earlier the top court had suggested the central government to develop a transparent system and a portal to issue the grievances of the evacuated medical students from Ukraine and seek permission to continue medical studies in India.

The Centre had submitted before the Supreme Court that in consultation with the National Medical Commission (NMC), it has taken proactive measures to assist returnee students from Ukraine but added that transferring these students to colleges in India would seriously hamper the standards of medical education in the country.

In the affidavit, the Centre had said the Government of India in consultation with the NMC, the apex medical education regulatory body in the Country, has taken proactive measures to assist returnee students from Ukraine while balancing the need to maintain the required standard of medical education in the country.

The affidavit was filed by the Centre on a batch of pleas filed by Indian students who have been evacuated from Ukraine and seeking permission to continue medical studies in India.

[seemabhatnagar]

Circumstantial Evidence and Conviction

Indrajit Das(Appellant) v. State of Tripura

Background of the case:

This is a case related to circumstantial evidence leading to conviction by the Trial Court u/s 302 IPC/34 IPC & 201 IPC and on Appeal the same was upheld by the Tripura High Court. However, on appeal the Supreme Court set aside the order of High Court as well as Trial Court.

Order of the Supreme Court:

 The Bench of Hon’ble Justice B R Gavai & Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath held that the major links of the chain of circumstances have not been proved by the prosecution evidence and as such it would be unjust to uphold the conviction of the appellant.

The appellant (Indrajit Das) would be entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges.

Principle Governing Circumstantial Evidence

Leading case: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC 116

The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.

Issue before the Supreme Court: Whether each link of the chain of circumstances is fully established by the prosecution or not.

Basic link in the chain of circumstances: Motive, then move on to last seen theory, recovery, medical evidence, expert opinions if any and any other additional link which may be part of the chain of circumstances.

Observation of the Apex Court:

Prosecution has not come forward with the motive of murder. The trial Court as well as High Court in the absence of any evidence failed to record any finding on the motive for the commission of crime by the appellant and co-accused Juvenile ‘K’.

Motive has an important role to play in the case of circumstantial evidence.

Dead body was not recovered only limb was found andno DNA test was carried out to establish that the limb was of deceased Kaushik Sarkar.

Principle of corpus delicti has judgments on both sides stating that conviction can be recorded in the absence of the recovery of the corpus and the other view that no conviction could be recorded in the absence of recovery of the corpus. The later view is for the reason that if corpus appears as alive, than someone may have been convicted and sentenced for no crime committed by him.

Last seen theory- The first information was given by one Arjun Das one of the prosecution witness  to the police station in the morning that his nephew Kaushik left the house in the evening on his motorbike and had not returned. He did not mentioned about either of appellant or the juvenile ‘K’.

The   main witness mother however stated that when she returned from the office she saw his son going on his fathers motorbike, she enquired where he was going. Kaushik told her he was going to Fatikroy Bazar with the appellant and ‘K’ and her mother followed Kaushik up to the gate and saw appellant and ‘K’. But in cross examination she denied of making such statement.

The conviction is based upon, apart from the prosecution witnesses, on the extra-judicial confession of the appellant as also ‘juvenile K’.

If the extra-judicial confession is to be accepted, the statement of last seen theory given by the mother becomes difficult to be given any credibility.

Extra judicial confession requires strong evidence to corroborate it and also it must be established that it was completely voluntary and truthful.

Evidence led by the prosecution is inconsistent and no corroborating evidence is found to support extra judicial confession.

Recovery of knife was made from the open place. It was not a place which could be said to be in the exclusive knowledge of the Appellant.

[college-buz]

Relief for MBBS students who came back from Ukraine, China as SC grants two attempts to clear exams

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed this after the centre, as a one-time exception, expressed willingness to give them one chance to clear the exam as recommended by an expert Committee.

Undergraduate medical students who had to return from Ukraine and China in their penultimate year of study will get two attempts to clear their final MBBS exams in India.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed this after the centre, as a one-time exception, expressed willingness to give them one chance to clear the exam as recommended by an expert Committee. Though the centre suggested one chance, the SC bench of Justices B R Gavai and Vikram Nath felt that this may be insufficient and modified it to allow two attempts.

“We accept the report of the committee, subject to a minor modification…student being offered a single chance to clear MBBS Final, both Part I and Part II Examinations, be read as student being offered single/two chances to clear both Part I and Part II examinations (theory and practical)”, the court ordered and clarified that “the two chances will be for both Part I and Part II examinations”. The court was hearing a plea by medical students who had to return from universities abroad following covid-19 and Ukraine-Russia war.

Hearing it on December 9, 2022, the SC asked the Union Ministries of Health, Home and External Affairs to “to find a solution to this humane problem” in consultation with the National Medical Commission (NMC). The court further said that the centre “may consider appointing a Committee…to find out a solution.”.

In an affidavit filed in response to the direction, the centre informed the SC that a Committee was accordingly set up under the chairmanship of the Director General lof Heath Service (DGHS) and comprising representatives of the NMC and the three ministries.

The Committee discussed the issue, the affidavit said adding that during the discussions, representatives from various states “voiced their reservation on the quality of education and training the FMGs (Foreign Medical Graduates) might have and hence had reservations about accommodating them in colleges mid-way during the course”.

It pointed out that the Committee after deliberations had recommended that students who had to return in their penultimate year and thereafter pursued online classes “may be offered a single chance to clear the MBBS Final, both Part I and Part II Examinations (both theory and practical) as per existing NMC syllabus and guidelines without being enrolled in any of the existing Indian medical colleges. They can give and clear the exam within a period of one year. Part I followed by Part II after one year. Part II will be allowed only after Part I is cleared”.

The Committee also recommended that “the theory exam could be conducted centrally and physically, on the pattern of Indian MBBS examination and practical could be conducted by designated medical colleges, assigned the responsibility.”

“After clearing these two examinations, they would have to complete 2 year of compulsory rotatory internship, first year of which will be free and the second year paid as has been decided by NMC for previous cases”, the Committee suggested and emphasised that “this…strictly be a one-time option and not become a basis for similar decisions in future and shall be applicable for present matter only in view of the” court’s directions.

Counsel appearing for the students however questioned the recommendations and contended that the government had erected yet another hurdle for the students.

They also raised doubts whether one chance would be sufficient given the difference in the syllabi followed in India and abroad.

The bench agreed that the move to allow them only once chance may be insufficient and directed that this be modified as two attempts. It however refused to intervene with any of the other recommendations of the expert committee.

[argus-news]

Relief for MBBS students who came back from Ukraine, China as SC grants two attempts to clear exams

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed this after the centre, as a one-time exception, expressed willingness to give them one chance to clear the exam as recommended by an expert Committee.

Undergraduate medical students who had to return from Ukraine and China in their penultimate year of study will get two attempts to clear their final MBBS exams in India.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed this after the centre, as a one-time exception, expressed willingness to give them one chance to clear the exam as recommended by an expert Committee. Though the centre suggested one chance, the SC bench of Justices B R Gavai and Vikram Nath felt that this may be insufficient and modified it to allow two attempts.

“We accept the report of the committee, subject to a minor modification…student being offered a single chance to clear MBBS Final, both Part I and Part II Examinations, be read as student being offered single/two chances to clear both Part I and Part II examinations (theory and practical)”, the court ordered and clarified that “the two chances will be for both Part I and Part II examinations”. The court was hearing a plea by medical students who had to return from universities abroad following covid-19 and Ukraine-Russia war.

Hearing it on December 9, 2022, the SC asked the Union Ministries of Health, Home and External Affairs to “to find a solution to this humane problem” in consultation with the National Medical Commission (NMC). The court further said that the centre “may consider appointing a Committee…to find out a solution.”.

In an affidavit filed in response to the direction, the centre informed the SC that a Committee was accordingly set up under the chairmanship of the Director General lof Heath Service (DGHS) and comprising representatives of the NMC and the three ministries.

The Committee discussed the issue, the affidavit said adding that during the discussions, representatives from various states “voiced their reservation on the quality of education and training the FMGs (Foreign Medical Graduates) might have and hence had reservations about accommodating them in colleges mid-way during the course”.

It pointed out that the Committee after deliberations had recommended that students who had to return in their penultimate year and thereafter pursued online classes “may be offered a single chance to clear the MBBS Final, both Part I and Part II Examinations (both theory and practical) as per existing NMC syllabus and guidelines without being enrolled in any of the existing Indian medical colleges. They can give and clear the exam within a period of one year. Part I followed by Part II after one year. Part II will be allowed only after Part I is cleared”.

The Committee also recommended that “the theory exam could be conducted centrally and physically, on the pattern of Indian MBBS examination and practical could be conducted by designated medical colleges, assigned the responsibility.”

“After clearing these two examinations, they would have to complete 2 year of compulsory rotatory internship, first year of which will be free and the second year paid as has been decided by NMC for previous cases”, the Committee suggested and emphasised that “this…strictly be a one-time option and not become a basis for similar decisions in future and shall be applicable for present matter only in view of the” court’s directions.

Counsel appearing for the students however questioned the recommendations and contended that the government had erected yet another hurdle for the students.

They also raised doubts whether one chance would be sufficient given the difference in the syllabi followed in India and abroad.

The bench agreed that the move to allow them only once chance may be insufficient and directed that this be modified as two attempts. It however refused to intervene with any of the other recommendations of the expert committee.

[werindialive]

4 out of five judges of the Supreme Court bench say demonetization was not a decision taken on a whim

In a statement, The Supreme Court of India on Monday said that PM Narendra Modi’s address to the nation on November 8, 2016, about demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 denomination currency notes was not at all a hasty decision as the RBIO and center were in regular talks about the topic since May that year.

A five-judge bench was hearing the petition out of which 4 judges, Justices S Abdul Nazeer, B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian said that RBI and center were consulting in the matter for a period of over six months. “As such, it cannot be said that there was no conscious, effective, meaningful, and purposeful consultation,” the bench said while dismissing the contention of P Chidambaram that demonetization was an arbitrary exercise by the government bereft of application of mind, adequate deliberation, and consultation. Writing the judgment, Justice B R Gavai said, “The decision-making process is also sought to be attacked on the ground that the decision was taken in a hasty manner. We find that the ‘hasty’ argument would be destructive of the very purpose of demonetization. Such measures undisputedly are required to be taken with utmost confidentiality and speed. If the news of such a measure is leaked out, it is difficult to imagine how disastrous the consequences would be.”

The opposition had been talking about the decision being taken on a whim, to ban the two high-value notes for a long time now and it was an agenda for several parliamentary debates as well as public platform discussions.

The bench referred to the book ‘History of the Reserve Bank of India” that similar secrecy had marked the 1978 demonetization exercise. 

For more national news India in Hindi, subscribe to our newsletter.

[arun-pratap-singh]

SC's BIG order on demonetisation, read details inside

SC’s BIG order on demonetisation, read details inside

The Supreme Court on Monday pronounce its judgment on a batch of petitions challenging the central government’s 2016 demonetisation move that debarred currency notes of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 denominations. The top court upheld the Centre’s decision on demonetisation. Justice B R Gavai said that the Centre’s decision-making process cannot be flawed as consultation was undertaken between the Reserve…

[dailynews9]

Hearing on the challenge to demonetization begins

Hearing on the challenge to demonetization begins

New Delhi: A five-judge Supreme Court Constitution bench on Thursday hinted at laying guidelines for future demonetization as it commenced hearing on a bunch of petitions challenging the validity of the Union government’s six-year-old decision to withdraw Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes. The bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, B R Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and B V Nagarathna told…