Demonetisation: P Chidambaram accepts Supreme Court’s judgment but…

While former Finance Minister P Chidambaram has accepted the Supreme Court’s decision on demonetisation as he is “obliged to accept it”, there are a few things that are “necessary to point out”, he said.

“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 tweeted.

“We are happy that the minority judgement has pointed out the illegality and the irregularities in the Demonetisation. It may be only a slap on the wrist of the government, but a welcome slap on the wrist,” he said.

“The dissenting judgement will rank among the famous dissents recorded in the history of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,” he added.

P Chidambaram was referring to Justice BV Nagarathna who, among the five-judge committee, was the only one to speak against the note ban in 2016. Nagarathna called the move by the Narendra Modi-led government as "unlawful”. In support of her claim that the RBI should have independently advised demonetisation, she cited section 26 of the Reserve Bank of India Act. She maintained that the RBI had not applied its mind independently.

Nagarathna called demonetisation as "an exercise of power, contrary to law, and therefore unlawful". She, however, did not question the Centre’s “best intention” as she called the move "well-intentioned and well thought of". “The measure has been regarded as unlawful only on a purely legal analysis, and not on the objects of demonetisation," she added.

The government's 2016 decision to demonetize the ₹1,000 and ₹500 denomination notes was maintained by the Supreme Court on January 2 in a 4:1 majority judgement, stating that the decision-making process was not defective.

The five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice SA Nazeer, stated that extreme restraint must be used while making decisions regarding economic policy and that the court was not in a position to judicially review an executive judgement.