New Delhi: Supreme Court judge Justice B.V. Nagarathna said she delivered a dissenting opinion on the 2016 demonetisation – in which she termed the action unlawful – because she was “stirred” by the “common man’s predicament”.
“Imagine a labourer, who went to work those days, had to get his notes exchanged before he could go to the grocery shop to buy the daily essentials,” Justice Nagarathna said on Saturday (March 30) while noting that 86% of the currency then was in Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes.
“I thought it was a good way of converting black money into white money. What happened about income tax proceedings thereafter, we don’t know. So, therefore, the common man’s predicament really stirred me and hence, I had to dissent,” LiveLaw quoted her as also saying.
She made the remarks while speaking at the ‘Courts and the Constitution’ conference at Hyderabad’s NALSAR law university.
In November 2016, the Union government declared in an executive order that the Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 denomination notes at the time would stop being legal.
It said the move was intended to curb black money and counterfeit currency.
While hearing challenges to demonetisation in January last year, Justice Nagarathna was the sole Supreme Court judge to hold it unlawful, saying there had been “no independent application of mind” by the RBI and noting the absence of discussion in parliament.
On Wednesday, she said the manner in which demonetisation was carried out “was not correct”.
“There was no decision-making process, which was in accordance with the law. The haste with which it was done … some people say even the then-finance minister did not know about it,” LiveLaw quoted her as saying in its live blog of her statements.
She continued: “The communication went on one evening and the [demonetisation] happened the next day.”
“98% of the currency came back to the RBI, so where were we heading towards black money eradication?” the judge also asked according to LiveLaw.
Justice Nagarathna also addressed the issue of state governments litigating the actions of governors, saying it was “quite embarrassing for governors to be told to do not do something,” the Indian Express quoted her as saying.
“This is not a healthy trend under the constitution to bring what the governor does before constitutional courts for consideration. Though it is called a gubernatorial post, it is a serious constitutional post, and governors must act as per the constitution so this kind of litigation reduces,” the Express also quoted her as saying.
She added: “It is quite embarrassing for governors to be told to do or not do a thing. The time has come where they would be now told, I suppose, to do their duties as per the constitution.”
Many state governments ruled by opposition parties have accused their governors – who are appointed by the BJP-led Union government – of acting in a partisan manner.
The Supreme Court has also addressed this issue and Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said recently of Tamil Nadu governor R.N. Ravi that he was “defying the Supreme Court” by not inducting an MLA whose conviction had been stayed into the state cabinet.
“What is your governor doing? The conviction has been stayed by the Supreme Court and the governor says he won’t swear him in! We will have to make some serious observations,” LiveLaw quoted CJI Chandrachud as saying last week.
Ravi has also courted controversy by not fully reading the customary governor’s address earlier this year and by delaying or withholding assent to Bills passed by the state assembly.
The governors of Kerala, Telangana and Punjab states have also been involved in similar controversies.
