Analysing the Demonetization Judgment by Supreme Court of India

Introduction

On 2nd January, 2023 the hon’ble Supreme Court of India gave its landmark judgment on the validation of the demonetization which took place in the year 2016, by the NDA government. The matter was heard on the basis of the group of petitions filed, as against the impugned decision of the government[i].

The Supreme Court upheld the decision made by the government and dismissed all the petitions. Majority of the petitions were based upon the ground of sudden and unplanned move of banning more than 86% of the total currency in a single night. Some petitions were also filed to provide some additional window to exchange the remaining older currency by the newer ones. Two different judgments were pronounced by the court headed by Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna.

Background Of The 2016 Demonetization

The historic move of demonetization was promulgated by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi via a national live telecast on 8th November, 2016 at 8:15 P.M. This announcement out rightly demonetised of more than 86% of country’s total existing currencies.

The citizens had the deadline of next 50 days to exchange their old currency with the new ones via the banks. With a population of more than 1.3 Billion people, the sudden decision of the government created lots of confusions, chaos, and panic among all the individuals. Via the demonetisation, around 99% of banned currency was retrieved by the Reserve Bank of India.

Impact Of Demonetisation At The Ground Level

In a cash reliant economy like India, the decision act as a tremor. Even worse, a daily withdrawal cap was imposed by the Reserve Bank of India. Through this move the government tried to target the benami transactions, illegal election funding, money laundering, and control over black money.

 However, this led to the rupee crashing as compared to Dollar, and the price of goods began to touch an all-time high cost. At the same time various political parties both at the central and the state level began questioning and doubting over the presence of some malicious intention of the Central Government, and began to call it as a scam.

Highlights Of The Judgment

The Supreme Court with a majority of 4:1 held the decision of demonetization as a valid one. The reason provided by the court was that the order does abide with the test of proportionality as well as legality.

However, Justice BV Nagarathna in her dissenting judgment stated that as per the Section 26(2) of Reserve Bank of India Act, the impugned order were vitiated and unlawful in nature. According to her, the government rather than adopting such hurry, and keeping in mind the secrecy must have adopted the pathway of ordinance to bring about the impugned order. She also stated that in case of the Parliament would have been in operation during that phase, than a plenary legislation may also have been passed for the same. Thus, what she meant was that a mere notification in regard of such a huge decision can never be a substitute of procedures and legality of ordinance or legislations. However, she further clarified that the word “illegal” in her judgment, nowhere questions the curbs which were made via this action over the circulation of hawala transactions, black money, drug trafficking, money laundering etc.

[Image Sources : Shutterstock]

demonetisation

From the majority side, Justice Gavai pronounced the judgment stating that the power of Central Government assigned under Section 26(2) of RBI act, cannot be solely ignored, on the ground that the demonetization took place, only for a particular series of notes. He further reiterated that, only on the ground that earlier two demonetizations that took place in 1947 and 1978, involved the scrapping of all series of notes, in anyway limits the jurisdiction of Central Government[ii].

Further, rejecting the plea, related to extension of the window to exchange the older currency, the hon’ble court held that the window of 52 days, starting from 8th November, 2016 was a reasonable time period. The court further compared it with the demonetization of the year 1978 where in all total only 8 days were assigned to exchange the older currencies.

Significance Of The Judgment

In the past six years, the society has already absorbed the aftershocks of demonetization, and now even in case of a dissenting or complete invalidation of the impugned order, no big change might have occur. This is because now the “time could not be reversed” via the court. However, the current judgment is taking place, just to lay down a broad guideline of any further such decision which the future governments might take.

Petitioner’s attorney and Congress leader P Chidambaram argued in the court that government does not have the discretionary power to make such a decision on its own, and the sole jurisdiction of such an exercise of power could only be made the Reserve Bank of India(RBI). However, the court in its reply stated that it has been proved by the documentary evidences that the decision was made by the government along with RBI, six months prior the official notification was passed.

On behalf of government the Attorney general R Venkataramani stated that, in the present case no tangible decision could ever be passed by the hon’ble court since it could not put the clock back or scramble the unscrambled egg in any manner.

Conclusion

Thus, all in all it could be held that the present decision of the hon’ble court is merely a landmark for the future decisions and actions related to demonetization. However, expecting the complete invalidation of the impugned order was merely a dream, which has no reality surrounding it. Though, the dissenting opinion pronounced by Justice Ranganathan has heated up the political arena, and only the time would tell whether this shall serve as an agenda in the coming assembly elections throughout the country.

Author: Kaustubh Kumar, A Student at Year law student at the National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchiin case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

REFERENCES

[i]https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.timesofindia.com/india/peoples-woes-no-ground-to-junk-2016-demonetisation-sc-in-4-1-judgment/amp_articleshow/96692174.cms

[ii]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/supreme-court-judgment-demonetisation-what-it-mean-in-2022-2316194-2023-01-02

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010