Mobilenews24x7 Bureau
Many personalities have come forward to comment on the reported judgement of the honourable Supreme Court of India on the issue of the abrupt decision to demonetise the currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs. 1000.
Although none has directly contradicted the judgement which in a way upheld the steps taken in 2016, but there have been a few notes of dissension through views which, perhaps, the legal apparatus deemed to be then justified.
It was a five-judge constitution bench and the majority view of four was pronounced to be the final on the issue that the Union Government by doing so has not wronged.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice S.A. Nazeer and comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna pronounced the judgment.
But for the people, the lone note of dissent coming from Justice B.V. Nagarathna and that too in a strongly worded view, cannot escape the common attention.
In her minority judgment, Justice Nagarathna held that the demonetisation of the Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes was vitiated and unlawful.
Justice Nagarathna said: “I am of the considered view that impugned notification dated November 8, 2016…is unlawful. In the circumstances the action of demonetisation of all currency notes Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes is vitiated…”
Justice Nagarathna emphasized that she is not questioning the ‘noble objectives’ of the exercise itself, but only the legal viewpoint and status quo ante cannot be restored now since the action occurred in 2016.
She noted that there was no independent application of mind by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and the entire exercise was carried out in 24 hours and added that the power of the Central government being vast has to be exercised through a plenary legislation rather than by an executive act by issuance of notification.
“It is necessary that Parliament, which consists of the representatives of the people of the country, discusses the matter and thereafter, approves the matter,” she said.
She further added that the proposal originated from the Centre while the RBI’s opinion was sought and such an opinion given by the RBI cannot be construed as a recommendation under section 26(2) of the RBI Act.
Justice Nagarathna said: “Parliament is often referred to as a nation in miniature. It is the basis of democracy… Parliament, which is the centre of democracy, cannot be left aloof in a matter of such critical importance.”
