[Demonetisation case] "This is embarrassing for court": Supreme Court on Central government request for adjournment

A constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to the Central government's request to adjourn hearing a batch of 58 pleas challenging the Central government's 2016 demonetisation that devalued ₹500 and ₹1,000 bank notes [Vivek Narayan Sharma v Union of India]..A Constitution Bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna had last month directed the government to file its additional replies and present its arguments today. However, Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani appeared and sought another week's time to file the response. "Normally a Constitution Bench never adjourns like this. We never rise like this. It is very embarrassing for the court also," remarked Justice Nagarathna..While the court allowed the AG's request and listed the case for further hearing on 24 November, it stressed that the hearing must be completed before this year.The AG said that he himself is also embarrassed to seek an adjournment but assured the court that he will endeavour to address the court in the most structured way possible..Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for the petitioner, requested the court to continue hearing the petitioners despite the Centre's inability to file a reply."As far as I'm aware.. the practice of this court. When a constitution bench sits.. is not to ask for an adjournment. A request such as this is very unusual. I would, therefore, suggest- if they require time let us open and complete our submission such as they are and there is no problem," he said..The bench, however, allowed the request on the AG's insistence that filing a response was essential for the court to hear the case on its merits. .In October, the apex court had agreed to hear submissions by petitioners who asserted that the issues are still alive and that the Court ought to decide on the constitutional validity of the actions..Senior Advocate Divan had referred to the decision of the Supreme Court Constitution Bench with regard to the exercise of demonetisation carried out in the year 1978, which was eventually decided after 18 years, in 1996."One thing I might just point out: as far as 77' 78' demonetisation is concerned, that decision eventually came in 1996 by Constitution Bench which examined the statute and thereafter went into individuals grievances," he submitted..Former Union Minister and Senior Advocate P Chidambaram also put forth before the Court the broad grounds that would be taken by the petitioners to challenge the demonetisation exercise..[Demonetisation] What the petitioners will argue before the Supreme Court Constitution Bench.While the AG and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Court to consider the limits of judicial review in the context of economic policy, the Court was persuaded by the petitioners' argument that while the policy itself may not be examined deeply, the procedure adopted for demonetisation was amenable to its jurisdiction..[Read our live coverage of today's hearing below]