HYDERABAD: The manner in which demonetisation was executed was incorrect, said Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna. She felt that there was a lack of proper decision-making processes in accordance with the law. Some claim that the then finance minister was unaware of the haste with which it was carried out. Justice Nagarathna, who had given her dissenting opinion in the Vivek Narayan Sharma vs Union of India case (demonetisation case), was delivering a speech as part of the introductory session of the Courts and the Constitution Conference organised by NALSAR University of Law, here on Saturday.
“The decision for demonetisation was communicated one evening, and it was implemented the following day. If the intention was to transition from paper currency to plastic currency, demonetisation might not have been the sole reason for such a move, in my opinion.”
She said that we all recall the events of November 8, 2016, when 500 and 1,000 rupee notes were demonetised. “What’s intriguing is that at that time, 86% of our economy’s currency comprised these denominations. It seems the Union government overlooked this fact when deciding to demonetise such a significant portion of the currency. Furthermore, 98% of the demonetised currency returned to the RBI,” she remarked. “This raises questions about the effectiveness of demonetisation in eradicating black money, which was its primary objective. Some even argue that it facilitated the conversion of black money into white money. The subsequent income tax proceedings remain unclear,” said argued.
She emphasised the importance of governors adhering to their constitutional duties amidst a recent trend of litigation regarding their refusal to assent to bills sent for approval by state governments. She expressed concern over governors’ actions being brought before constitutional courts, stressing that they must act in accordance with the Constitution to reduce such litigation. Justice Nagarathna’s remarks were prompted by recent concerns expressed by the Supreme Court regarding the conduct of Governors in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab.
Furthermore, Justice Nagarathna discussed the Supreme Court’s fluctuating opinions on reproductive rights, particularly in cases concerning medical termination of pregnancy. She emphasised the complexity of decisions regarding abortion rights. Nepal SC Judge Sapana Malla, and Pakistani SC Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah also participated. Justice Bhat highlighted the Supreme Court’s judgement upholding the abrogation of Article 370 but noted its failure to address issues concerning federalism.
He referred to this and other judgments, such as those on electoral bonds and the appointment of election commissioners, as indicative of the court’s willingness to revisit established norms to ensure the Constitution remains relevant in the 21st century.