Economy
DeMo Verdict: What Were The Six Issues Framed By The SC? What Was The Dissenting Opinion On Them?
Swarajya Staff
Jan 02, 2023, 01:53 PM | Updated 01:53 PM IST
Save & read from anywhere!
Bookmark stories for easy access on any device or the Swarajya app.
The majority opinion of a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed petitions challenging the Central government's 2016 decision to demonetise currency notes of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500.
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice S Abdul Nazeer and comprising of Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna upheld the demonetisation move of 2016 in 4:1 verdict.
The following issues were framed by the Supreme Court for adjudicating on the case:
That Section 26(2) of the RBI Act that allows the government to declare all series of a particular denomination as being no longer legal tender is too wide;
That the decision-making process [for demonetisation] was deeply flawed;
That the recommendation did not consider relevant factors;
That the stated objectives of demonetisation were not achieved;
That the move fails the test of proportionality;
That the Court has powers to mould and grant declaratory relief.
In the majority opinion given by Justice Gavai, he stated that there has to be great deal of restraint before interfering in matters of economic significance and therefore the judiciary cannot supplant such views with the judicial one.
He further stated that there indeed was consultation between the Centre and the RBI for a period of six months. 'We hold that there was a reasonable nexus to bring such a measure, and we hold that demonetisation was not hit by doctrine of proportionality', said Justice Gavai in his opinion.
Moreover, he stated that RBI has no independent power to bring about demonetisation and therefore the power available to the centre is for all series of bank notes. He held that there is not excessive delegation under 26(2) of the RBI Act. The notification was held to be valid and the period for exchange of notes was held to be proper.
Justice Nagarathna, however, delivered a dissenting opinion and differed on each of the questions.
She stated that carrying out demonetisation at the behest of the Central government is a far more serious issue affecting citizens than the one done by the banks. Therefore, in her view, powers of Centre being vast, the same had to be done by plenary legislation.
She stated that there is an inherent contradiction in the provision of Section 26(2) of the RBI Act. She also added that demonetisation was recommended by the Central government and there was no independent application of mind by the RBI.
Save & read from anywhere!
Bookmark stories for easy access on any device or the Swarajya app.
Support Swarajya's 50 Ground Reports Project & Sponsor A Story
Every general election Swarajya does a 50 ground reports project.
Aimed only at serious readers and those who appreciate the nuances of political undercurrents, the project provides a sense of India's electoral landscape. As you know, these reports are produced after considerable investment of travel, time and effort on the ground.
This time too we've kicked off the project in style and have covered over 30 constituencies already. If you're someone who appreciates such work and have enjoyed our coverage please consider sponsoring a ground report for just Rs 2999 to Rs 19,999 - it goes a long way in helping us produce more quality reportage.
You can also back this project by becoming a subscriber for as little as Rs 999 - so do click on this links and choose a plan that suits you and back us.
Click below to contribute.