Draft of Public Interest Writ Petition Against Restrictions on Withdrawals from Bank Accounts

Draft of Public Interest Writ Petition Against Restrictions on Withdrawals from Bank Accounts By Anil Chawla Law Associates LLP We are of the opinion that Government of India and Reserve Bank of India have no authority under law to restrict citizens and other legal persons of India from withdrawing money from their bank accounts. This is an issue that is independent of demonetization which is being examined by the Honourable Supreme Court. The assumption of authority by Government and Reserve Bank of India without any sanction under law is a serious matter. It involves danger to our country s democracy and rule of law. It is the duty of citizens to resist such blatant disregard of constitution and law by the institutions that derive their power from constitution and law and that are supposed to uphold and protect constitution and rule of law. The enclosed Draft of PIL Writ Petition is a copyright of Anil Chawla Law Associates LLP. It is, however, being offered to all citizens of India to use and approach their relevant High Court. The draft will need to be modified minimally for submission to your High court. The portions that need to be changed are highlighted. Please put the name of the relevant High Court and your (petitioner s) details in the highlighted places and the petition will be ready for submission. You may need the services of an advocate to do the court formalities and also to do the pleadings. Of course, you may decide to plead yourself without the assistance of any advocate. Please visit Free Download section of our website www.indialegalhelp.com to download a ZIP file that contains the WORD File containing the draft petition and eight pdf files containing the relevant Annexures. We expect nothing in return for the draft. We shall be obliged if you do not erase the credit line given at the end of the petition. We shall also like if you keep us informed of the progress of the petition. This will help us provide any further assistance that we may be in a position to provide. With best wishes and regards, Anil Chawla Advocate, Senior Partner Anil Chawla Law Associates LLP, info@indialegalhelp.com 27 November 2016

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No. / 2016 (P.I.L.) PETITIONER: XXXXX XXXXX, Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India 2. Reserve Bank of India INDEX S.No. Description of Document Annexure No. Page No. of the document 01 Index -- to 02 Synopsis and Chronology of Events -- to 03 Writ Petition with Affidavit -- to 04 Copy of Notification no. S.O. 3407 (E) dated 8 th November 2016 published in The Gazette of India Extraordinary no. 2652 by Respondent no. 1 P/1 to 05 Copy of Notification / P/2 to Page No. 1

Circular no. RBI/2016-17/112, DCM (Plg) No.1226/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 8 th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 06 Copy of Notification / Circular no. RBI/2016-17/115, DCM (Plg) No. 1241/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 9 th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 07 Copy of Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/129, DCM (Plg) No.1272/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 13 th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 08 Copy of Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/141, DCM (Plg) No.1304/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 20 th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 09 Copy of Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-2017/145, DCM (Plg) No.1320/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 21 st November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 10 Copy of Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/149, DCM (Plg) No.1346/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 22 nd November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 P/3 to P/4 to P/5 to P/6 to P/7 to Page No. 2

11 Copy of Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/158, DCM (Plg) No. 1424/10.27.00/2016-16 dated 25 th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 P/8 to 12 Urgent Hearing Application --- to 13 Vakalatnama --- to Place:.. Date:. Counsel for Petitioner Page No. 3

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No. / 2016 (P.I.L.) PETITIONER: XXXXX XXXXX Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India 2. Reserve Bank of India SYNOPSIS The Petitioner is a public spirited citizen and is also aggrieved by the Notification (Annexure P/1) issued by the Respondent No. 1 and by Circulars / Notifications (Annexures P/2 to P/8) by Respondent No. 2. The impugned notifications / circulars impose restrictions on withdrawal of cash from bank accounts by all categories of persons. The Respondents have deprived citizens and other legal persons of India of their property (money) held in their respective bank accounts causing enormous misery, hardship and inconvenience to people of India. As per Article 300A of Constitution of India, one can be deprived of one s property only by a law passed either by the Parliament of Union of India or by Legislature of a state of India. Imposing restrictions on withdrawal of one s own money amounts to a form of deprivation of one s property. Respondents have no power under any law to impose such deprivation. The Respondents have misused their position of power and have exceeded the authority granted to them by the Constitution of India and by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Hence, the indulgence and intervention of this Honourable Court is prayed for declaration of the Page No. 4

impugned notifications and circulars issued by the Respondents as null and void. CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS DATE EVENT 8 th November 2016 Notification issued by Respondent no. 1 imposing restriction upon withdrawal of cash from the bank accounts by limiting the amount of withdrawal to Rs.10,000 in a day and Rs.20,000 in a week. The withdrawal from the Automated Teller Machine was restricted to Rs.2000 per day per card. 8 th November 2016 Notification / Circular issued by Respondent No. 2 ordering banks to limit the cash withdrawal by persons to the limits specified in the notification issued by the Respondent No.1. 9 th November 2016 Notification / Circular issued by Respondent No. 2 ordering banks to limit the cash withdrawal by persons from ATMs up to the limit of Rs.2,000 per day per card. 13 th November 2016 Notification / Circular issued by Respondent No. 2 in enhancing the limit of cash withdrawal by persons from ATMs making it Rs.2500 per day per card and the weekly limit of cash withdrawal was increased to Rs.24,000. 21 st November 2016 Notification / Circular issued by Respondent No. 2 restricting cash withdrawal by persons for the purpose of Page No. 5

wedding to Rs. 2,50,000 only if the wedding is on any day before 31 st December 2016. 22 nd November 2016 Notification / Circular issued by Respondent No. 2 modifying the cash withdrawal limits prescribed for weddings earlier 24 th November 2016 Notification / Circular issued by Respondent No. 2 regarding the weekly cash withdrawal limit Place:.. Date:.. Counsel for Petitioner Page No. 6

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No. / 2016 (P.I.L.) PETITIONER: XXXXX XXXXX S/o R/o.. email: Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India Through, The Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 2. Reserve Bank of India, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra) Page No. 7

Regular Public Interest Litigation Petition 1. Particulars of the cause/order against which the petition is made: (1) Date of Order / Notification/ Circular / Policy / Decision: a. Notification no. S.O. 3407 (E) dated 8 th November 2016 published in The Gazette of India Extraordinary no. 2652 dated 8 th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 1 (Annexure P/1); b. Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/112, DCM (Plg) No.1226/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 8 th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure P/2); c. Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/115, DCM (Plg) No. 1241/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 9 th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure P/3); d. Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/129, DCM (Plg) No.1272/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 13 th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure P/4); e. Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/141, DCM (Plg) No.1304/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 20 th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure P/5); Page No. 8

f. Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-2017/145, DCM (Plg) No.1320/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 21 st November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure P/6); g. Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/149, DCM (Plg) No.1346/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 22 nd November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure P/7); h. Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/158, DCM (Plg) No. 1424/10.27.00/2016-16 dated 25 th November 2016 (Annexure P/8). (2) Passed in (Case or file number) : Not Applicable (3) Passed by (Name and designation of the Court, Authority, Tribunal etc.): Respondent No. 1 for Annexure P/1 and Respondent No. 2 for Annexures P/2 to P/8. (4) Subject-matter in brief: The Respondents have issued the impugned notifications / circulars imposing restrictions on withdrawal of cash from bank accounts by all categories of persons. The Petitioner is an aggrieved person. The Petitioner pleads that any restrictions on withdrawal of one s own money from one s own bank account amount to depriving one of one s property. Respondents have not referred to any law which permits or authorizes them to deprive Indian citizens and other persons of their property (balances in bank accounts). In the absence of sanction or authority of any law, the impugned Notifications / Circulars are ultra vires of the Page No. 9

Constitution of India and are therefore fit to be declared null and void. 2. The Antecedents of the Petitioner 1) That the Petitioner is... (give petitioner s social public standing/professional status and public spirited antecedents; if the petitioner is a social group or organization, the names of the officebearers must be furnished). 2) The present petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is being filed by way of public interest litigation and the Petitioner has no personal interest except for the fact that the Petitioner is personally aggrieved by the impugned notifications / circulars in the same way that every citizen of the country has been affected. The petition is being filed in the interest of constitutional governance in the country. 3) That the petitioner is filing the present petition on his own and not at the instance of someone else. The litigation cost, including the advocate s fee and the traveling expenses of the lawyers, if any, are being borne by the petitioner himself (if not, the petitioner must disclose the source of funds). 3. Facts in brief, constituting the cause: (a) Respondent No. 1 has issued the notification enclosed herewith as Annexure P/1 under section 26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Page No. 10

(b) Paragraphs 2(vi) and 2(viii) of the notification enclosed herewith as Annexure P/1 read as follows: (c) Respondent No. 2 followed up on the abovementioned notification issued by Respondent No. 1 and issued notifications / circulars enclosed herewith as Annexure P/2 to P/8. In the said notifications / circulars, the Respondent no. 2 either imposed fresh restrictions on withdrawal of money by persons from their own bank accounts or modified the restrictions issued earlier by either of the Respondents. (d) By the impugned notifications / circulars issued by the Respondents, citizens and other legal persons of India have been deprived of their property (money) held in their respective bank accounts causing enormous misery, hardship and inconvenience to them. (e) The Petitioner is personally aggrieved by the impugned notifications / circulars issued by the Respondents. (f) The matter relates to public interest. 4. Source of information The Petitioner has obtained the impugned notifications / circulars from official websites of the Respondents. The Petitioner declares that he has verified that the impugned Page No. 11

notifications / circulars are from the official websites of the Respondents. 5. Nature and extent of injury caused / apprehended a. The impugned notifications / circulars have caused enormous misery, hardship and inconvenience to farmers, workers, businesses, industries and other persons involved in nation s economy. b. Currency of a country is the blood of the body of the country. The restrictions on currency withdrawals have dried up the blood of the economic body of the country. c. International tourist arrivals have suffered due to the restrictions imposed by the Respondents. The tourists who have landed in the country are facing a difficult situation thereby affecting the reputation of the country across the globe. d. Buying and selling in agricultural markets of the country has reduced drastically causing immense suffering to the farmers and their families who constitute about 70% of the country s population. Page No. 12

e. Truck transport in the country is suffering since truck owners and drivers are unable to withdraw cash from their bank accounts to meet expenses on the road. f. Toll collection on toll roads has suffered and the Respondent No. 1 had to waive off the toll for significant amount of time. g. Most small businesses across the country including grocers, vegetable vendors, restaurants and other such service outlets are suffering because of a collapse of the cash stream of their customers. h. Migrant workers have lost their jobs and are facing a threat to their survival. i. Families have weddings planned for the next few months are unable to carry out their planned expenses due to restrictions on cash withdrawals. j. Construction activity in the country has come to a virtual standstill since the contractors have no cash to pay to their workers. k. There is almost no section of business or economic activity that has not been affected adversely by the impugned notifications / circulars of the Respondents. Page No. 13

6. Issue raised was neither dealt with nor decided The Petitioner declares that the issue raised was neither dealt with nor decided by a Court of law at the instance of the Petitioner or to the best of his knowledge, at the instance of any other person. 7. Any representation etc. made The Petitioner has made no representation etc. to any authority or to the Respondents. 8. Grounds: a) By the impugned Notifications / Circulars, the Respondents have imposed restrictions on citizens constitutional right, granted under Article 300A, to enjoy their own property. b) A citizen can be deprived of his right to enjoy his property only by a process of law. c) It is a well-settled principle of constitutional law that the law that can deprive a citizen of his constitutional right under Article 300A must be one that is passed by either the Parliament of Union of India or the Legislature of a state of India. d) Respondents have no power or authority under any law to deprive the citizens of their property. Page No. 14

e) Law making power of the Union and of the states of the Union rests only with the Parliament and the legislatures of the respective states. The executive wing of the Respondent No. 1 has no power to make any law. Same holds true for Respondent No. 2. f) Balances held by citizens and other legal persons in bank accounts are property of the respective citizens or legal persons. g) Imposing restrictions on withdrawal from one s own bank account amounts to depriving from property. h) Impugned Notifications / Circulars issued by the Respondents cannot be said to fall under the definition of authority of law. i) Section 26 (2) of the Act gives the Respondents the power to declare any series of any denomination shall cease to be legal tender. However, this section of the Act (or any other section of the Act) does not give either one or both of the Respondents to impose restrictions on withdrawals from bank accounts. Hence the impugned notification enclosed as Annexure P/1 as well as all other impugned notifications / circulars derive no legal authority from the said sub-section of the Act (or from any other part of the Act) as far as restrictions on withdrawals are concerned. j) There is no other law that the Respondents have referred to in any of the impugned notifications. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the Respondents have misused their position of power Page No. 15

and have exceeded the authority granted to them by the Constitution and by the Act. k) The Act empowers the Respondent No. 2 to regulate the banks in the country. However, the extent of the regulation allowed in the Act is clearly specified therein. The sections of the Act prescribing regulation of the banking system do not permit the Respondent No. 2 to control or prescribe the amount of withdrawals that an account holder may make from his bank account. l) The impugned notifications / circulars have hurt the trust that is the foundation of the relationship between a bank and its customer. If the bank could be ordered by someone without authority of any law to withhold withdrawal from bank accounts, the country will become a no-trust land and will surely be worse than what can be described as a banana republic. m) In the absence of any authority from either the Constitution or the Act (or from any other law), the impugned notifications / circulars are ultra vires of the Constitution and are fit to be declared null and void as far as restrictions on operations of bank accounts are concerned. n) The impugned notifications / circulars have delivered a body blow to the economy of the country. Allowing any institution or constitutional authority to do so without sanction of law will shake up the rule of law that our country is known for. It is hence imperative that the Respondents are duly reprimanded for their extra-constitutional and extra-legal actions. Page No. 16

o) Respondents, by their extra-constitutional and illegal actions, have done great damage to the credibility to the country and its banks across the world. Tourists and travelers to India are now making fun of the official advertisement titled Incredible India saying that India is truly incredible since it lacks credibility. A country where banks have no credibility will surely be the laughing stock of the international community. 9. Details of remedies exhausted The Petitioner declares that he has availed all statutory and other remedies; and that there are none available other than approaching this Honourable Court. 10. Delay, if any, in filing the petition and explanation therefor: The cause of action first arose on 8th November 2016 when the Respondent No. 1 published the Notification enclosed herewith as Annexure P/1. The cause of action further arose when the other notifications / circulas were issued by Respondent No. 2 on subsequent dates. No delay has been made in filing the petition. Page No. 17

11. Relief(s) prayed for: In views of the facts and circumstances mentioned above and the grounds urged, the Petitioner humbly prays for the following relief(s):- a. Kindly issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the impugned notifications / circulars as ultra vires of the Constitution and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1935. b. Kindly issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the impugned notifications / circulars and declaring the same to be ab initio null and void; c. Kindly issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the Respondents directing them to cease and desist in future from issuing notifications / circulars which they are not authorized by law to do; d. Any other remedy or relief which the Honourable Court may deem fit. Page No. 18

12. Interim Order, if prayed for: The Petitioner most humbly prays that operation of the impugned notifications / circulars be stayed till the Petition is disposed of by the Honourable Court and the Respondents be ordered to restore status quo as it existed prior to the impugned notifications / circulars. 13. Caveat: That, no notice of lodging a caveat by the opposite party is received. Place:. Date:. Advocate for Petitioner Petition drafted by: Anil Chawla Law Associates LLP www.indialegalhelp.com Page No. 19

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No. / 2016 (P.I.L.) PETITIONER: XXXXX XXXXX Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India 2. Reserve Bank of India LIST OF DOCUMENTS S.No. Descriptions of Document 01 Writ Petition with Affidavit Date of Document Original/ Copy Number of Pages Original Pages 02 Notification no. S.O. 3407 (E) dated 8 th November 2016 published in The 8th November 2016 Copy Pages Gazette of India Extraordinary no. 2652 by Respondent no. 1 03 Notification / Circular no. RBI/2016-17/112, DCM (Plg) No.1226/10.27.00/2016-8 th November 2016 Copy Pages Page No. 20

17 dated 8 th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 04 Notification / Circular no. RBI/2016-17/115, 9 th November Copy Pages DCM (Plg) No. 2016 1241/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 9 th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 05 Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/129, 13 th November Copy Pages DCM (Plg) 2016 No.1272/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 13 th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 06 Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/141, 20 th November Copy Pages DCM (Plg) 2016 No.1304/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 20 th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 07 Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-2017/145, 21 st November Copy Pages DCM (Plg) 2016 No.1320/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 21 st November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 08 Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/149, Copy Pages DCM (Plg) No.1346/10.27.00/2016- Page No. 21

17 dated 22 nd November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 09 Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/158, 25 th November Copy Pages DCM (Plg) No. 2016 1424/10.27.00/2016-16 dated 25 th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2 10 Urgent Hearing Pages Application 11 Vakalatnama 1 Page Place:.. Date:.... Advocate for Petitioner Page No. 22

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No. / 2016 (W.I.P.) PETITIONER: XXXXX XXXXX Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India 2. Reserve Bank of India AFFIDAVIT I, XXXXX XXXXX, s/o., aged., r/o... the Deponent do hereby solemnly affirm as under:- 1. That I am competent to file this affidavit. 2. That the accompanying Writ Petition has been read by me and that I have understood its contents. 3. That the facts mentioned in the Writ Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and brief and that nothing material has been concealed therein. 4. That the grounds contained in Part 8 are based on legal advice to me and that Part 11 and 12 are Prayer. VERIFICATION DEPONENT I, above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 4 of the foregoing affidavit are true to my personal knowledge and belief and that nothing material has been concealed therein. Verified and signed on this day of. 2016 DEPONENT Page No. 23

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No. / 2016 (P.I.L.) PETITIONER: XXXXX XXXXX Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India 2. Reserve Bank of India Application for Urgent Hearing The Petitioner most humbly submits as follows: 1. The accompanying Writ Petition is submitted in a matter of public interest in which almost every section of population is affected. 2. Interim relief has been prayed for in the Writ Petition. 3. It will in the interest of justice to take up the accompanying Writ Petition on urgent basis. 4. PRAYER The Petitioner prays that the accompanying Writ Petition is taken up for urgent hearing. Place:.. Date:.... Advocate for Petitioner