Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram has accepted the Supreme Court's decision on demonetisation as he is "bound to accept it".
Though former Finance Minister P Chidambaram has accepted the Supreme Court's decision on demonetisation as he is bound to accept it, there are a few things that need to be pointed out.
“It is necessary to point out that the majority has not retained knowledge of the judgment; Nor has the majority concluded that the stated objectives were achieved. In fact, the majority has clarified the question whether the objectives were achieved," P Chidambaram tweeted.
“We are happy that the minority judgment has pointed out the illegality and irregularities in demonetisation. It may only be a slap on the wrist of the government, but a welcome slap on the wrist," he said.
"The dissenting judgment will go down in history as one of the famous dissents recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court," he added.
P Chidambaram was referring to Justice BV Nagaratna, who was the only one in the five-judge panel to speak against demonetisation in 2016. Nagaratna termed the Narendra Modi-led government's move as "illegal". In support of his claim that the RBI should have independently advised on demonetisation, he cited Section 26 of the Reserve Bank of India Act. He said that the RBI had not applied its mind independently.
"To say that demonetisation has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is completely misleading and incorrect. An Hon'ble Judge has stated in his dissenting opinion that the Parliament should not be bypassed."
Shri @Jairam_Ramesh's statement on Supreme Court's decision on demonetisation.
— Congress (@INCIndia) January 2, 2023
Nagaratna called demonetisation "an exercise of power, contrary to law, and therefore illegal". However, he did not question the "best intentions" of the Centre, as he called the move "well thought out and well thought out". ," she added.
The government's 2016 decision to demonetise ₹1,000 and ₹500 denomination notes was upheld by the Supreme Court on 2 January in a 4:1 majority judgment, which said the decision-making process was not faulty.
A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice SA Nazeer, said that extreme restraint should be exercised while taking decisions with regard to economic policy and that the court was not in a position to judicially review an executive decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment