Parties and roles: Vivek Narayan Sharma is the petitioner who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Union of India is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is a constitutional writ proceeding. The Union withdrew legal-tender status of high-value banknotes representing most currency in circulation, citing counterfeit currency, terror financing and black money. Citizens faced exchange limits and disruption. The challenges focused on whether Section 26(2) of the RBI Act authorized demonetization of an entire series, whether the RBI recommendation was genuine, and whether proportionality applied to high economic policy. Procedural and real-world context: 08 Nov 2016: ₹500 and ₹1,000 notes demonetized. | 2016 onward: Numerous petitions challenged legality and implementation. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve did Section 26(2) authorize demonetization of all series of specified denominations? Was the decision-making process lawful? Did the measure satisfy proportionality? Could additional exchange relief be ordered? The outcome mattered immediately because by 4:1, the measure was upheld. The majority found 'any series' capable of including all series, accepted the consultation/recommendation process and held the measure proportionate to legitimate objectives; success is not judged solely by later results. Procedural setting: 08 Nov 2016: ₹500 and ₹1,000 notes demonetized. | 2016 onward: Numerous petitions challenged legality and implementation. | 2022: Constitution Bench examined surviving legal issues despite completion. | 02 Jan 2023: Measure upheld 4:1. The central problem before the Court was did Section 26(2) authorize demonetization of all series of specified denominations? Was the decision-making process lawful? Did the measure satisfy proportionality? Could additional exchange relief be ordered? The controversy was considered in the framework of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, s.26(2); Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, together with Constitution arts.14, 19 and 300A. The wider importance of the case lies in judicial review of economic policy; proportionality; statutory interpretation; institutional process; majority/dissent.

Petitioners: the scale required legislation; decision-making was rushed, RBI independence was compromised, objectives were not achieved and hardship was disproportionate. | Union/RBI: Section 26(2) covered any series, extensive consultation occurred, objectives were legitimate and courts should not invalidate economic policy based on outcomes. Competing positions in context: Vivek Narayan Sharma's position: as the petitioner, Vivek Narayan Sharma sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Judicial review of economic policy; proportionality; statutory interpretation; institutional process; majority/dissent. Union of India's position: as respondent, Union of India resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, s.26(2); Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 and Constitution arts.14, 19 and 300A, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

By 4:1, the measure was upheld. The majority found 'any series' capable of including all series, accepted the consultation/recommendation process and held the measure proportionate to legitimate objectives; success is not judged solely by later results. Justice Nagarathna dissented, concluding an initiative originating from the Union required parliamentary legislation and that the RBI's statutory recommendation contemplated an independent central-board proposal. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Judicial review of economic policy; proportionality; statutory interpretation; institutional process; majority/dissent and binds the parties to the operative directions made in W.P.(C) No. 906/2016 and connected matters. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, s.26(2); Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, s.26(2); Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017

Constitution arts.14, 19 and 300A

Judicial review of economic policy; proportionality; statutory interpretation; institutional process; majority/dissent