"If there has to be a window (extension for depositing demonetised notes) then all of you (petitioners and others) have to be considered," a bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justices D Y Chandrachud and S K Kaul said.
It was hearing a batch of pleas including the one filed by Sudha Mishra challenging the Centre's decision not to allow the public at large to deposit demonetised currency notes till March 31 as promised by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and others as the window ended on December 30 last year.
"I am bound by the court's order... There cannot be a separate window (to deposit notes) for individuals. If the court allows and grants the window (relief) then it has to be for all," he said.
When some lawyers, representing persons who wanted to deposit currency notes besides seeking other reliefs, started arguing their individual cases, the AG said, "Then, I will have to file separate counter affidavits on the facts of each case."
Earlier, the Centre, in its affidavit, had told the apex court that it has taken a "conscious decision" not to extend the period beyond December 30 last year for exchanging demonetised currency notes unlike for the NRIs, and security personnel posted in remote areas, which ended on March 31.
The government has also said it was not legally bound to come out with a fresh notification to grant grace period or window for depositing scrapped currency notes.
The affidavit has given details about the raids and seizures made by the law-enforcing agencies during and after the demonetisation period claiming that undisclosed income of over Rs 5,400 crore was detected.
One of the petitions also referred to the speech of the prime minister on November 8, 2016 and subsequent notification of the RBI spelling out that people may deposit demonetised currency notes even after December 31, 2016 at specific RBI branches up to March 31, 2017 after complying with certain procedural requirements.
It has referred to the Specified Bank Notes Cessation of Liabilities Ordinance and said it had gone against the assurance.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
