• Justice Nagaratna, in his minority judgement, said that demonetisation of ₹500 and ₹1,000 notes was tainted, illegal
Justice BV Nagaratna was the lone dissenting voice in the five-judge Supreme Court bench that delivered its verdict on the Centre's 2016 decision on demonetisation. Justice Nagaratna differed with the majority decision on the point of Centre's powers under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act.
Justice BV Nagaratna disagreed with the majority judgment on the point of Centre's powers under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act and said that the cancellation of ₹500 and ₹1,000 series notes had to be done through a law Not through a notification.
Justice Nagaratna, in his minority judgement, held that demonetisation of ₹500 and ₹1,000 notes was tainted, illegal. Decision. Supreme Court Justice Nagaratna further said on demonetisation, "Parliament cannot be left aloof on an issue of such vital importance to the country."
Justice Nagaratna said, "Parliament should have discussed the law on demonetisation, the process should not have been done through gazette notification."
The bench, also comprising Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, said the Centre's decision-making process could not have been flawed as there was consultation between the RBI and the central government.
The apex court's verdict came on a batch of 58 petitions challenging the demonetisation exercise announced by the Center on November 8, 2016.
The court said that the notification dated November 8, 2016 announcing the decision to demonetise high denomination currency notes cannot be said to be unreasonable and quashed the same on the basis of decision making process Is.
The top court said that it is not relevant whether the objective behind the decision was achieved or not.
"The notification dated November 8, 2016 is valid, satisfying the test of proportionality," said a bench of justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and B V Nagaratna.
No comments:
Post a Comment