A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on the batch of pleas challenging the Central government's 2016 demonetisation exercise on January 2, 2023. [Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India and ors].A Constitution Bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna had reserved its judgment on December 7..As per the causelist, the verdict appears to be a unanimous judgment authored by Justice BR Gavai..The top court had heard a batch of pleas challenging the move, specifically on eleven questions of law.Over six years after the move, the petitioners raised the following broad grounds:Section 26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Act that allows the government to declare all series of a particular denomination as being no longer legal tender is too wide;The decision-making process was deeply flawed;The recommendation did not consider relevant factors;The stated objectives of demonetisation were not achieved;The move fails the test of proportionality;The Court has powers to mould and grant declaratory relief..Senior Advocate Shyam Divan had submitted that a recommendation of Central Board of the RBI was a necessary requirement before the Central government could have taken the decision for demonetisation.He added that the Centre was duty-bound to honour the promise written in bank notes of paying bearers a sum, in writ and civil courts..Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta for the RBI argued that if every individual were to make specific demands and seek a writ of mandamus, the deadlines would have been meaningless."The Prime Minster said 50 days, if he had even stated that more time would be granted later, no case is made out that promissory estoppel operates. Beyond that period we did not give any guarantee.".Attorney General (AG) for India R Venkataramani had stressed that the distinctions made for grace periods for different categories were not arbitrary.On the contention by one of the petitioners that their right to dignity was affected, the AG had said,"The dignity aspect should be preserved for more precious cases. An NRI goes abroad for financial benefit, no question of dignity there. Dignity involves privacy etc.".Senior Advocate P Chidambaram had told the Supreme Court that the Central government should disclose documents revealing how the 2016 demonetisation exercise was approved, so that the top court can decide the legal validity of the move..Follow our stories on what transpired at previous hearings, here.