'Courts Should Refrain From...': Bombay HC Rejects 'Half-Baked' Plea Seeking Probe Into Demonetisation

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Central government to demonetise the currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 denominations in 2016

The Bombay HC held that it cannot rely on “half-baked information” and direct an investigation into the statutory functioning of an institution like the RBI.

Source : Getty

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition that alleged wrongdoing by the RBI officials during the 2016 demonetisation, reported PTI. The HC bench headed by Justices A S Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh said that courts should refrain from delving into the monetary regulatory framework. The court said that the demonetisation notification issued in 2016 was a “policy decision."

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Central government to demonetise the currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 denominations in 2016. A five-judge Constitution bench dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the Centre's 2016 decision to demonetise Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes and said the decision, being the Executive's economic policy, cannot be reversed.

According to a PTI report on Tuesday, Bombay HC was hearing the plea filed by 'tax volunteer' Manoranjan Roy, who was seeking an independent investigation to inquire into alleged wrongful activity and action by certain RBI officials during the demonetisation. The court said that the petition appeared to be more of an investigative inquiry, driven by the petitioner's suspicion of a potential scam. 

“In our opinion, the present petition is nothing but a fishing inquiry into what the petitioner perceives to be a scam based on various figures set out in the annual reports as well as the information given under the RTI,” the court said.

The court held that it cannot rely on “half-baked information” and direct an investigation into the statutory functioning of an institution like RBI.

“The act of RBI in issuing the legal tender is a statutory function backed by expert committees and cannot be called in question on frivolous grounds,” the high court said. Adding that it is common that there is a presumption that the policy decision is bonafide and in the interests of the public unless found otherwise. 

“It cannot be disputed that the RBI plays an important role in shaping the economy of our country and the courts should refrain from delving into the monetary regulatory framework unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that there is a need for an investigation by an independent agency,” the bench said.

The court, as per the report, stated that there were no valid grounds for an inquiry or investigation, as the petitioner's allegations did not show any criminal offense. The petitioner had been persistently seeking an investigation into RBI's operations since 2016 but lacked substantial evidence. The petitioner's claimed that certain RBI officials allegedly assisted individuals in exchanging unaccounted old currency notes during demonetisation. The petitioner based this on RBI's annual reports from 2016 to 2018, which suggested discrepancies in the amount of old currency notes in circulation.

The petitioner had requested an inquiry into potential offenses like criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, and cheating.

“Considering the prominence that the RBI commands in the economic structure, the annual reports of the RBI, which are put in the public domain by the experts, cannot be questioned as being irregular or illegal without any demonstrable criminality,” the court said.

“We find that the petitioner has collated the information from the annual reports of RBI and information received under RTI (Right to Information) and has come with a case that the numerical figures therein reveal discrepancy,” the court said. However, this information does not indicate that an offence has occurred that warrants a thorough inquiry or investigation, the court added.

While rejecting the plea, the court said that it was inclined to impose exemplary costs on the petitioner but refrained from doing so upon the request of their advocate, the report said.