Listed as Item 30 in CJI TS Thakur’s court, the Supreme Court of India shall be hearing four different petitions over demonetisation. While the Madras High Court has already delivered a judgment in a similar petition, there are two petitions that are also pending different High Courts. Here is a round up of what has been filed, and the lawyers who have appeared so far..The Supreme Court of India.Lawyers involved: Vivek Narayan Sharma, (AoR, petitioner in person), Sangam Lal Pandey (Petitioner in person).What: Sharma has not taken issue with demonetisation as such; rather he is opposing the the manner in which the scheme has been implemented. Pandey has also pointed out the practical difficulties faced by the public following the scheme..Next Date of Hearing: No notice has been issued, and the two petitions have been clubbed together, and will be heard today..The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench).Lawyers involved: S.M.A.Jinnah (Petitioner’s counsel), ASG G.R. Swaminathan, K.R.Laxman (RBI’s counsel).What: In a 29-page judgment [pdf], the Bench of Justices S. Nagamuthu and M.V. Muralidaran dismissed a PIL that had sought a quashing of the November 8 notification. Holding that no judicial review was called for, the court also observed that:.“[The] common man has to yield to these measures taken by the Government with the laudable object of curbing these anti-social and anti-National activities.”.The High Court at Hyderabad.Lawyers involved: MK Srinivas (Petitioner lawyer), P.V. Krishnaiah (Petitioner’s counsel).What: As per the Deccan Chronicle, Srinivas has not only sought a quashing of the November 8 notification, but has also challenged the validity of Section 26(2) of the RBI Act. This provision allows the Central Government to demonetise notes of any value..Next Date of Hearing: Mentioned before Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and A Shankar Narayana J. – No notice issued – Matter to be heard on Thursday, November 17..Gujarat High Court.Lawyers involved: Nikhil Kuriel (Petitioner’s counsel), ASG Devang Vyas.What: The petitioner, has sought a 1-month extension on using the “old” notes at government hospitals and pharmacies. He has also sought the extension to be applicable to private hospitals when it comes to emergency operations..Chief Justice RS Reddy and VM Pancholi did not issue any directions after issuing notice, but did say that it was hoped that the central government would grant the exemption on its own..Next Date of Hearing: Wednesday, November 16..The Bombay High Court.Lawyers involved: Jamshed Mistry (counsel) and Jabbar Shaikh.What: A public interest litigation challenging the process by which the notification was issued. Although the matter was mentioned before a vacation bench of Karnik J, the judge said that this would have to be examined by a division bench..Next Date of Hearing: This matter is likely to be mentioned on Tuesday, November 15..The Karnataka High Court .Lawyers involved: Mohammed Haroon Rasheed (Petitioner in person).What: As per the Times of India, not only did Chief Justice Mukherjee dismiss a PIL for quashing the notification, but went on to observe that a “major step was necessary” to fight the “parallel economy” in the country..The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow).Precious little is available in this regard, except this PTI report that says a petition was filed but dismissed by the High Court. However, a comment on our Facebook page reveals that a PIL was filed in the Lucknow Bench and subsequently dismissed.