advertisement
A constitution bench of the apex court on Monday, 2 January, by a 4:1 majority upheld the demonetisation exercise initiated by the Central Government as valid and said that it cannot be struck down.
Four out of a five-judge bench upheld the move, but Justice BV Nagarathna dissented with the majority view and said:
What did the majority judgment say?
The majority judgment pronounced by Justice BR Gavai, additionally, said:
Demonetisation had a reasonable nexus with the objectives sought to be achieved, and that it was not relevant whether the objective was achieved or not
The prescribed period of 52 days for currency exchange cannot be said to be unreasonable
Restrictive meaning cannot be given to the word "any" under Section 26(2) of RBI Act, with the modern trend being of pragmatic interpretation.
What was Justice Nagarathna's dissenting view?
Dissenting with the others on the bench, Justice Nagarathna said:
Section 26(2) can only be for a particular series of currency notes and not for the whole series of currency notes of a denomination
When the proposal for demonetisation originates from the Central Govt, it is not under Section 26(2) RBI Act. It is to be way of a legislation, and if secrecy is needed, then by way of an Ordinance.
The apex court had reserved its verdict in the matter on 7 December. Find details of what was argued in the court here.
(With inputs from Livelaw.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)
Published: undefined