Writing Exercise// News sum up// Compilation

Editorials comment on the dissent in SC’s demonetisation judgment

Justice B V Nagarathna is the sole dissenting judge of the Demonetisation verdict

Six years after Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes, a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the controversial decision. 

The verdict with a majority concluded that there was no flaw in the decision-making process. 

However, Justice B V Nagarathna had a  dissenting judgment and called the entire exercise not in accordance with the law. Nagarathna also raised crucial questions over the RBI’s institutional independence. 

The major national English dailies commented on the 4:1 verdict, as follows:

Take notes in note ban 

The Indian Express emphasized the need for RBI and Government to look closely into the dissenting order . 

As stated by Justice Nagarathna - the proposal for demonetisation “originated” from the central government and  the recommendation was “obtained” from the RBI in just the form of an opinion.

The newspaper pointed out observations of the Nagarathna that stated the RBI had no independent application of mind . RBI failed to convince the government of the folly of the move during the six months that it was in consultations with it on the matter. 

 

The dissenting judgment  differentiated between an exercise carried out on the basis of a mere notification in the official gazette and legislation in Parliament, according to The Indian Express.

 

While upholding demonetisation, SC failed to hold government accountable

The Hindu noted the judicial view - that courts must defer to the elected government’s judgment in matters of economic and social policy.  

It stated the distressing factor of the majority verdict  that made light of the enormous suffering of the people that demonetisation entailed. 

It detailed on how the majority has brushed aside substantial arguments based on proportionality, holding that demonetisation survives every test for proportionality: there was a legitimate purpose (unearthing fake currency and hoarded wealth and combating terror funding), there was a nexus between the action and the objectives, and the court did not have the expertise to suggest a less intrusive way of achieving these objectives. 

The newspaper commented on the inefficiency in addressing the question on whether the adverse consequences could have been limited. 

The Hindu summarized that  Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent, holding the process to be flawed and the RBI’s approach to be without application of mind, is a consolation for those who want the courts to hold those in power to account.

Dissenting judge makes good points 

The Times of India observed how the bench majority refrained from identifying an alternative measure that would have constrained citizens’ rights less.

TOI also noted that the diversity of public opinions on demonetisation was mirrored in SC too as Justice BV Nagarathna in the minority ruled the exercise unlawful and said the status quo ante can’t be restored as the event happened in 2016. 

She ruled that the Constitution empowers Centre to demonetise currency but the exercise should have been implemented through a law of Parliament. She faulted RBI for lacking “independent application of mind” while “recommending” what Centre desired.

The newspaper commented that demonetisation is hard to support in terms of economic policy logic.  

TOI observed the boost in digital payments and commented that an economic shock is not the best way to encourage digital payments. 

It summarized that the conclusion of the demonetisation hearings should act as an incentive to set up more constitution benches for other long pending matters.

 

Impact of demonetisation

The Telegraph pointed out that the highest court limited its deliberations on the integrity of the process .

The newspaper detailed the verdict that has, unsurprisingly, been followed by a political slugfest. The Bharatiya Janata Party, emboldened by the outcome in the court, has castigated the Congress for its campaign against demonetisation.

It commented that the sole dissenting judge pointed out an alternative mechanism by an act of Parliament instead of a dramatic announcement by the prime minister .

 It also explained the consultations between the Centre and the RBI . As speculated upon especially since Raghuram Rajan, the former governor of the RBI, had expressly stated that the Central bank had not been asked to take a decision on demonetisation at any point during his tenure. 

The Telegraph notes the impact of demonetisation, the ones occupying the bottom rungs of India’s economic pyramid: migrants, wage earners, farmers, among others — and the informal economy are yet to recover from the damages caused by demonetisation.