Demonetisation of old notes: The proposed law explained

Legislation

Demonetisation of old notes: The proposed law explained

Vatsal Khullar - February 7, 2017 Comments

The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Bill, 2017 is being discussed in Parliament today.[1] The Bill replaces an Ordinance promulgated on December 30, 2016 to remove the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) liability and central government’s guarantee to honour the old Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes which were demonetised on November 8, 2016 through a notification.[2] These notes were allowed to be deposited in banks by December 30, 2016. In light of this, we explain the provisions of the Bill and possible implications.

What does the Bill say?

Under the RBI Act, 1934, RBI is responsible for issuing currency notes, and is liable to repay the holder of a note upon demand. The Bill provides that, from December 31, 2016, RBI would no longer be liable to repay holders of old notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000, the value of these notes.[3] Further, the old notes will no longer be guaranteed by the central government.

Can a person keep old notes?

A person will be prohibited from holding, transferring or receiving the old notes from December 31, 2016 onwards. It exempts some people from this prohibition including: (i) a person holding up to 10 old notes (irrespective of denomination), and (ii) a person holding up to 25 notes for the purposes of study, research or numismatics (collection or study of coins or notes).

What happens if a person continues to hold old notes after December 30, 2016?

Any person holding the old notes, except in the circumstances mentioned above, will be punishable with a fine: (i) which may extend to Rs 10,000, or (ii) five times the value of notes possessed, whichever is higher.

Are there any issues with this provision?

There may be two issues.

No window to deposit old notes before imposing penalty: The notification of November 8^th allowed old currency notes to be deposited till December 30, 2016 and specified that people unable to deposit them till this date would be given an opportunity later.² However, the Ordinance which came into force on December 31, 2016 made it an offence to hold old currency notes from that day onwards and imposed a penalty. This overnight change did not provide a window for a person holding the notes on that day to exchange or deposit them. Therefore, not only did the holder lose the monetary value of the notes but he was also deemed to have committed an offence. This implies that a person who had the notes did not have an opportunity to avoid committing an offence and attracting a penalty.

Unclear purpose behind penalty on possessing old notes: The purpose and the objective behind imposing a penalty for the possession of old currency notes is unclear. One may draw a comparison between holding an invalid currency note, and an expired cheque since both these instruments are meant to complete transactions. Currently, a cheque becomes invalid three months after being issued. However, holding multiple expired cheques does not attract a penalty.

Is it still possible to deposit old notes?

The government has specified a grace period under the Bill to allow: (i) Indian residents who were outside India between November 9, 2016 to December 30, 2016 to deposit these notes till March 31, 2017, and (ii) non-residents who were outside India during this period to deposit notes till June 30, 2017. The government may exempt any other class of people by issuing a notification. In addition, RBI has permitted foreign tourists to exchange Rs 5,000 per week. No other person can exchange or deposit old notes after December 30, 2016.

Would this satisfy Constitutional norms?

While the notification issued on November 8 specified that after December 30, 2016, any person unable to exchange or deposit old notes would be allowed to do so at specified RBI offices, the Bill does not provide such a facility except in the circumstances discussed above.

On may question whether this violates Article 300A of the Constitution, which states that no person will be deprived of his property except by law. Though this Bill will be a “law”, one may want to think about whether its provisions meet the standards of due process and are not arbitrary. Given that earlier notifications had indicated that a facility for exchanging or depositing old notes would be provided after December 30, 2016, would the action of not providing such facility under the Bill qualify as an arbitrary action which violates due process? [4] A few examples will be useful in examining this question.

Case 1: A person unable to deposit notes due to poor health

A person may have been unable to deposit old currency notes owing to various reasons such as poor health, old age or disability till the deadline of December 30, 2016. The Bill does not provide any facility for such persons to deposit old notes, except if they were not in India during the period between November 8 and December 30, 2016.

Case 2: A person without a bank account

A person without a bank account may have held over Rs 4,500 in old currency notes. The notification (and future modifications) allowed a person to exchange up to Rs 4,500 over the counter once till November 24, 2016.[5] Such a person would have to incur a monetary loss if he possessed old notes above this value, given his inability to deposit them in a bank account.

Case 3: Indian citizens living abroad

There may be Indians working or studying abroad holding old currency notes. The government has notified the last date for depositing old notes for these non-resident Indians as June 30, 2017.[6] However, these people may not visit India between November 8, 2016 and June 30, 2017. In such a scenario, these people may have to incur a monetary loss.

Case 4: Foreign nationals entering India before demonetisation

Foreign tourists in the country may have held old currency notes before demonetisation on November 8, 2016. Such tourists can only exchange old currency notes of up to Rs 5,000 per week till January 31, 2017.[7] Given that such foreigners may not have bank accounts in India, they may also suffer a monetary loss for whatever amount could not be exchanged within the period they were in India. For example, a person who had Rs 10,000 and left India on November 13, 2016 would not have been able to get the value of notes they had, over Rs 5,000.

In addition, Indian currency notes are used legally in neighbouring countries such as Nepal and Bhutan. The Bill allows only Indian citizens to deposit old notes for an extended period under certain conditions. However, it does not make any provisions for foreigners to deposit or exchange old notes held by them. Such foreign nationals who are not Indian residents would not have bank accounts in India.

[1] The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Bill, 2017,http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Specified%20Bank%20notes/specified%20bank%20notes%20bill%202017-compress.pdf.

^[2] S. O. 3407 (E), Gazette of India, Ministry of Finance, November 8, 2016, http://finmin.nic.in/172521.pdf.

[3] The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Ordinance, 2016,http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Ordinances/Specified%20Bank%20Notes%20%28Cessation%20of%20Liabilities%29%20Ordinance,%202016.pdf.

[4] Section 2 (ix) of the notification issued on November 8, 2016 (No. S. O. 3407 (E)) states that any person who is unable to exchange or deposit the specified bank notes in their bank accounts on or before the 30th December, 2016, shall be given an opportunity to do so at specified offices of the Reserve Bank or such other facility until a later date as may be specified by it.

[5] S. O. 3543 (E), Gazette of India, Ministry of Finance, November 24, 2016, http://finmin.nic.in/172740.pdf.

[6] S. O. 4251 (E), Gazette of India, Ministry of Finance, December 30, 2016,http://dea.gov.in/sites/default/files/24Notification%2030.12.2016.pdf.

[7] Exchange facility to foreign citizens, January 3, 2017, https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=10815&Mode=0.

Understanding recent amendments to the Arms Act, 1959

No comments

Rohin Gerg - December 5, 2019 Comments

The Arms (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was introduced in Lok Sabha recently and is scheduled to be passed in this Winter Session. The Bill amends the Arms Act, 1959 which deals with the regulation of arms in India. The Act defines arms to include firearms, swords, and anti-aircraft missiles. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill noted that law enforcement agencies have indicated a growing connection between the possession of illegal firearms and criminal activities. In this context, the Bill seeks to reduce the number of firearms allowed per person, and increases punishments for certain offences under the Act. The Bill also introduces new categories of offences. In this post, we explain key provisions of the Bill.

How many firearms are allowed per person?

The Arms Act, 1959 allows a person to have three licenced firearms. The Bill proposes to reduce this to one firearm per person. This would also include any firearms that may have been given as inheritance or as an heirloom. Excess firearms must be deposited at the nearest police station or licensed arms dealer within one year of the passing of the Bill. The Bill also extends the duration of a licence from three years to five years.

Note that in 2017, 63,219 firearms were seized from across India under the Arms Act, 1959. Out of these, only 3,525 (5.5%) were licenced firearms. Further, 36,292 cases involving firearms were registered under the Act in 2017, of which only 419 (1.1%) cases involved licenced firearms. [1] This trend persisted even at the level of specific crimes, where only 8.5% of the murders committed using firearms involved licenced firearms. [2]

What changes are being made to existing offences?

Presently, the Act bans manufacture, sale, use, transfer, conversion, testing or proofing of firearms without license. The Bill additionally prohibits obtaining or procuring un-licensed firearms, and the conversion of one category of firearms to another without a license. The latter includes any modifications done to enhance the performance of a firearm.

The Bill also proposes increased punishments for several existing offences. For example, the Act specifies the punishment for: (i) dealing in un-licensed firearms, including their manufacture, procurement, sale, transfer, conversion, (ii) the shortening or conversion of a firearm without a licence, and (iii) import or export of banned firearms. The punishment for these offences currently is between three years and seven years, along with a fine. The Bill increases the minimum punishment to seven years and the maximum to life imprisonment.

The Act also punishes dealing in prohibited firearms (such as automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles) without a license, with imprisonment between seven years and life imprisonment, along with fine. The Bill increases the minimum punishment from seven years to 10 years. Additionally, the punishment for cases in which the usage of prohibited arms results in the death of a person has been revised. The punishment has been updated from the existing punishment of death penalty to allow for death penalty or life imprisonment, along with a fine.

Are there any new offences being introduced?

The Bill adds certain news offences. For example, forcefully taking a firearm from police or armed forces has been made a crime under the Bill. The punishment for doing so is imprisonment between 10 years and life imprisonment, along with a fine. Additionally, the Bill punishes the negligent use of firearms, such as celebratory gunfire during weddings or religious ceremonies which endanger human life or personal safety of others. The proposed punishment in this case is imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine of up to one lakh rupees, or both.

The Bill also adds a definition of ‘illicit trafficking’. It is defined to include the trade, acquisition, sale of firearms or ammunitions into or out of India where the firearms are either not marked as per the Act or violate the provisions of the Act. The Bill makes illicit trafficking punishable with imprisonment between 10 years and life, along with a fine.

Does the Bill address issues of organised crime?

The Bill also introduces a definition of ‘organised crime’. ‘Organised crime’ has been defined as continued unlawful activity by a person, either as a member of a syndicate or on its behalf, by using unlawful means, such as violence or coercion, to gain economic or other benefits. An organised crime syndicate refers to two or more persons committing organised crime.

The Bill introduces harsher punishments for members of an organised crime syndicate. For example, for the possession of an unlicensed firearm, the minimum term for an individual would be seven years, extendable to life imprisonment and liable to a fine. However, the possession of unlicensed firearms by a member of a syndicate will be punishable with imprisonment between 10 years and life, along with a fine. This increased punishment also applies to non-members contravening provisions of the Act on behalf of a syndicate.

[1] Crime in India 2017, National Crime Records Bureau, October 21, 2019, http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2017/pdfs/CII2017-Full.pdf.

[2] Crime in India 2016, National Crime Records Bureau, October 10, 2017, http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2016/pdfs/NEWPDFs/Crime%20in%20India%20-%202016%20Complete%20PDF%20291117.pdf.

Tenure and salaries of CIC and ICs under the Right to Information Rules, 2019

No comments

Anya Bharat Ram - October 29, 2019 Comments

The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 amended the Right to Information Act, 2005. The RTI Act, 2005 specified the tenure, terms of service and salaries of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs) at the central and state levels, in the parent law. The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 removed these provisions and stated that the central government will notify the term and quantum of salary through rules.[1]^,[2]

The Right to Information Rules, 2019 were notified on October 24, 2019.[3] These rules set out the tenure, terms of service and salaries of the CIC and ICs at the state and central levels. Table 1 compares the provisions related to the tenure and salary of the CIC and ICs under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Right to Information Rules, 2019

Table 1: Comparison of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Right to Information Rules, 2019

Provision

RTI Act, 2005

RTI Rules, 2019

Term

The CIC and ICs (at the central and state level) will hold office for a term of five years.

The CIC and ICs (at the central and state level) will hold office for a term of three years.

Salary

The salary of the CIC and ICs (at the central level) will be equivalent to the salary paid to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners (Rs 2,50,000 per month)

Similarly, the salary of the CIC and ICs (at the state level) will be equivalent to the salary paid to the Election Commissioners (Rs 2,50,000 per month) and the Chief Secretary to the state government (Rs 2,25,000 per month), respectively.

The CIC and ICs (at the central level) shall receive a pay of Rs. 2,50,000 and Rs. 2,25,000 per month, respectively.

CICs and ICs (at the state level) shall receive a pay of Rs. 2,25,000 per month.

Source: The Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission) Rules, 2019; The High Court and the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 2017; Indian Administrative Services (Pay) Rules, 2016; PRS.

[1] Right to Information Act, 2005, https://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf.

[2] Right to Information (Amendment Act), 2019, file:///C:/Users/Dell/Downloads/The%20Right%20to%20Information%20(Amendment)%20Bill,%202019%20Text.pdf.

[3] The Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission) Rules, 2019, http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/213438.pdf.

Demonetisation of old notes: The proposed law explained

Subscribe to the PRS Blog