A five-judge constitution bench on Wednesday expressed displeasure over the Union government’s unparalleled request for adjourning the hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the demonetisation announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2016.

“Normally, a constitution bench never adjourns like this. We never rise like this once we have started. It is very embarrassing for this court,” Justice B.V. Nagarathna remarked when attorney-general R. Venkataramani made the unusual statement at the commencement of the proceedings that the affidavit was not ready.

Tuesday was the sixth anniversary of the demonetisation announcement by Modi. By the time the constitution bench assembled on Wednesday, 2,192 days had passed since the recall of high-denomination notes was sprung on the country. No veteran associated with the court could recall another occasion when an adjournment had been sought before a constitution bench.

Usually, the Supreme Court benches sit in a combination of two judges and, at times, three judges. Only on matters relating to constitutional validity, a five-judge or a larger bench sits. Setting up a constitution bench is an arduous task as regular benches have to be shuffled, which affects the functioning of the court.

“My profuse apologies. We could not get the affidavit ready,” attorney-general Venkataramani told the court.

“We require a short indulgence of about a week. I would say that the affidavit we file will be useful for all of us to proceed in the case in some structured way. Otherwise, the course of action may be unnavigated. We will place it by next Wednesday or Thursday. I am deeply sorry for this delay,” Venkataramani added.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for some of the petitioners, opposed the plea of the attorney-general. He said there was no precedent when an adjournment was sought before a constitution bench.

“As far as I am aware, it has been the practice of this court that when a constitution bench is hearing a matter, the practice is not to ask for an adjournment. Each one of us here is aware of it. A constitution bench has the highest priority. Therefore, when the attorney-general makes a request such as this, it is something unusual. I am in an awkward position and I do not know how to respond,” Divan submitted.

The senior counsel said despite the Centre’s request, the bench can continue with the proceedings and hear the arguments. Venkataramani conceded that such requests are not made before a constitution bench. “I admit that all of us are aware that we do not make a request like this before a constitution bench. But there are some serious issues on account of which we are making the request. Therefore, I have made this request.”

Justice S.A. Nazeer, heading the bench, said the court would grant a short adjournment of one week. The other judges on the bench are Justices B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopannaand V. Ramasubramanian, besides Justice Nagarathna. On October 12, the bench had directed the Centre and the RBI to file comprehensive affidavits to justify the decision to demonetise Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes as it rejected the government’s argument that the 2016 decision had only academic interest and the hearing was a “waste of the court’s time”.

The constitution bench is expected to answer several questions that have swirled around the demonetisation all these years.