Demonetisation Verdict –
The Supreme Court has given an important decision on Monday in the case of a petition filed against demonetisation. The court has justified the decision of the central government by rejecting all the 58 petitions related to it. The court also said that the government has followed all the rules regarding demonetisation. The matter was discussed between the government and RBI for six months and after that the decision was taken. A five-judge bench headed by Justice S Abdul Nazeer has given its verdict in the matter. The court had reserved its verdict on December 7 last after hearing the arguments of the central government, the Reserve Bank and the petitioners in detail. Know ten big things related to this petition and the decision of the court.
- In 2016, the government announced demonetisation :-
In the year 2016, on the night of November 8, the central government had announced the closure of 500 and 1000 rupee notes. Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself announced this in his address to the nation. After this announcement by the government, long queues were seen at banks and ATMs across the country. People had struggled a lot to get new notes by changing old notes. - 58 petitions were filed against demonetisation :-
The opposition made the government’s decision of demonetisation an issue. All kinds of allegations were leveled against the central government. The opposition said that this is a kind of scam. 58 different petitions were filed against this in the court. After a long hearing on these, the court had reserved the order on December 7. - The five-judge bench gave its verdict :-
While hearing the petition filed against demonetisation, a five-judge bench gave an important verdict. Justice S Abdul Nazeer presided over it. Apart from Justice Nazir, Justice BR Gavai, Justice AS Bopanna, Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice BV Nagaratna were included in this bench. - What was argued in the petition? :-
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioners that Section 26(2) of the RBI Act 1934 has been invoked in this case. Senior advocate P. Chidambaram had argued that the central government cannot initiate any proposal related to legal tender on its own and it can be done only on the recommendations of the central board of the RBI. - What was the argument given by the Central Government? :-
The central government had called it an academic issue. The government had said that the court cannot decide a matter when no substantial relief can be granted by ‘going back in time’. - The court asked for the document :-
The Supreme Court had on December 7 directed the central government and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to produce relevant records relating to the government’s decision to demonetise Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 notes in 2016. After which documents were presented in a sealed envelope on this issue by the government and RBI. - It was also argued by the government and RBI :-
Explaining the reasons for demonetisation, Attorney General R Venkataramani had said that demonetisation was not a stand-alone step but a part of a comprehensive economic policy, so it is not possible for the RBI and the government to work in isolation. He had said that the RBI and the central government work in consultation with each other. RBI informed that during the Central Board meeting, the conditions related to quorum (certain number of members in the meeting) of the RBI General Regulations, 1949 were followed. The Reserve Bank has informed that the meeting was attended by the RBI governor as well as two deputy governors and five directors nominated under the RBI Act. In such a situation, the condition of the law was followed under which three members should be nominated. - Justice Nazir is retiring after two days :-
Supreme Court judge Justice Nazir, who gave the verdict on demonetisation, is retiring after two days i.e. on January 4. This big decision of his before retirement is being told as historical. - What next? :-
To understand this, we spoke to Supreme Court advocate Chandra Prakash Pandey. He said, ‘After demonetisation, there have been all kinds of allegations regarding this. Now after the order of the court, it is expected that politics will calm down on this.
