On January 2, the Supreme Court of India upheld the Central Government’s decision to go ahead with the demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes that was announced in November 2016. The five-judge Constitution Bench dismissed a set of petitions filed against the demonetisation in a 4:1 judgment.
The Supreme Court said that there was consultation between the Centre and the RBI before demonetisation and that there was reasonable nexus to bring about the decision. The apex court further added that the doctrine of proportionality did not hit demonetisation. The doctrine of proportionality means that the action should not be more drastic than it ought to be to obtain the desired result.
The apex court had reserved its judgments on the batch of 58 petitions on December 7. Earlier, the SC had asked the Centre and Reserve Bank of India to place before it the records pertaining to the 2016 demonetisation decision in a sealed envelope. The SC had said that it has the power to examine the manner in which the decision for demonetisation was taken, adding that “the judiciary cannot fold its hands and sit just because it is an economic policy decision”.
Grasping at straws, a raft of self-described ‘liberals’ who supported their dying career by fearmongering over the Centre’s Demonetisation move on Monday fell over themselves to hail Justice BV Nagarathna for dissenting on the Supreme Court’s momentous verdict. However, they predictably ignored Justice BV Nagarathna’s praises for the Demonetisation move.
Hailing Justice BV Nagarathna, Rajdeep Sardesai said, “BIG DEMO verdict: 5 judge SC constitution bench holds 2016 demonetisation VALID. Boost for Modi govt. Justice Nagarathna differs from Justice Gavai majority view on whether due process was followed in decision-making. Key Qs unanswered: were the stated objectives of the Demo met or not?”
BIG DEMO verdict: 5 judge SC constitution bench holds 2016 demonetisation VALID. Boost for Modi govt. Justice Nagarathna differs from Justice Gavai majority view on whether due process was followed in decision making. Key Qs unanswered:were stated objectives of Demo met or not? https://t.co/1wSBcY6wDD
— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) January 2, 2023
In a series of tweets, former Finance Minister and Congress leader P Chidambaram said once the Court has declared the law, everyone is obliged to accept it. “However, it is necessary to point out that the majority has not upheld the wisdom of the decision, nor has the majority concluded that the stated objectives were achieved. In fact, the majority has steered clear of the question of whether the objectives were achieved at all,” he added.
However, it is necessary to point out that the majority has not upheld the wisdom of the decision; nor has the majority concluded that the stated objectives were achieved. In fact, the majority has steered clear of the question whether the objectives were achieved at all.
— P. Chidambaram (@PChidambaram_IN) January 2, 2023
Furthermore, he said, “We are happy that the minority judgement has pointed out the illegality and the irregularities in the Demonetisation. It may be only a slap on the wrist of the government, but a welcome slap on the wrist.”
The dissenting judgement will rank among the famous dissents recorded in the history of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
— P. Chidambaram (@PChidambaram_IN) January 2, 2023
He added, “We are happy that the minority judgment has emphasised the important role of Parliament in a democracy. We hope that in future an unbridled Executive will not thrust disastrous decisions on Parliament and the people.”
We are happy that the minority judgment has emphasised the important role of Parliament in a democracy
— P. Chidambaram (@PChidambaram_IN) January 2, 2023
We hope that in future an unbridled Executive will not thrust disastrous decisions on Parliament and the people
Shiv Sena leader Priyanka Chaturvedi said, “Much respect for Justice BV Nagarathna for standing up and speaking out.”
Much respect for Justice BV Nagarathna, for standing up & speaking out #Demonetisation https://t.co/13F54JaHwa
— Priyanka Chaturvedi🇮🇳 (@priyankac19) January 2, 2023
In a tweet, NDTV noted, “Notes ban action by centre “unlawful”, says Supreme Court judge in dissenting order in 4:1 verdict. Notably, NDTV did not clarify if the judgment was in favour or against demonetisation.
#Demonetisation pic.twitter.com/hgUFAqQJ3d
— NDTV (@ndtv) January 2, 2023
Justice PV Naharathna praised demonetisation
Notably, Justice BV Nagarathna was not completely against demonetisation. The judge noted that the objectives of the central board may have been sound, just and proper. However, she raised an issue with how “objects were achieved and the procedure followed was not in accordance with law”.
J Nagarathna, concluding: Demonetisation was, beyond a pale of doubt, well-intentioned. Best intention and noble objects are not under question. The measure has been regarded as unlawful only on a purely legal analysis and not on the objects of demonetisation.
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) January 2, 2023
She added, “It targeted evils such as black money, terror funding and counterfeiting. The measure is declared unlawful purely on legal grounds and not on the basis of objects.”
On November 8, 2016, Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi announced the demonetisation of high currency denomination notes of Rs. 500 and Rs.1000. The move was aimed at curbing corruption, black money, reducing Naxal movement, eliminating counterfeit currency, and terrorism funding.
