New Delhi/IBNS: The Supreme Court on Monday backed the Narendra Modi governments controversial 2016 demonetisation move, in a setback for the opposition parties that have been targeting the Centre over the step for years.
The judges have stated the central government has the power to take such a move.
The note ban cant be struck on the grounds of proportionality, the court said.
Four judges in the five-judge bench headed by Justice SA Nazeer said the Centre is required to consult the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) before such a move and the two had consulted twice in six months.
The court also said a period of 52 days to exchange the old notes with the new ones was not unreasonable.
On Nov 8, 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the ban on Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 currency notes in a notice of four hours.
The step was widely seen as a move to curb black money in the country.
Taking a jibe at the opposition, ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)s national executive member Amit Malviya tweeted, Defining line from Supreme Courts judgement on demonetisation: Court cannot supplant the wisdom of executive with its wisdom.
It is a message for the opposition not to lean on judiciary to settle political scores. The role of the executive and judiciary are clearly defined
Defining line from Supreme Courts judgement on demonetisation: Court cannot supplant the wisdom of executive with its wisdom.
It is a message for the opposition not to lean on judiciary to settle political scores. The role of the executive and judiciary are clearly defined
Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) January 2, 2023
Former Union Finance Minister and Congress leader, P Chidambaram, tweeted, Once the Honble Supreme Court has declared the law, we are obliged to accept it.
However, it is necessary to point out that the majority has not upheld the wisdom of the decision; nor has the majority concluded that the stated objectives were achieved. In fact, the majority has steered clear of the question whether the objectives were achieved at all, he added.
However, it is necessary to point out that the majority has not upheld the wisdom of the decision; nor has the majority concluded that the stated objectives were achieved. In fact, the majority has steered clear of the question whether the objectives were achieved at all.
P. Chidambaram (@PChidambaram_IN) January 2, 2023
