City
Epaper

Dissenting judgement on demonetisation points out irregularities: Chidambaram on SC verdict

By IANS | Updated: January 2, 2023 12:05 IST

New Delhi, Jan 2 After the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the demonetisation exercise of the government, former ...

Open in App

New Delhi, Jan 2 After the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the demonetisation exercise of the government, former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram said the dissent part of the judgement points out irregularities.

Chidambaram in a statement said, "Once the Hon'ble 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."

"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 added.

He said the dissenting judgement "will rank among the famous dissents recorded in the history of the Hon'ble Supreme Court".

The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed the Central government's 2016 decision to demonetise currency notes of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 denominations.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice S.A. Nazeer and comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna pronounced the judgment on a clutch of petitions challenging the Centre's 2016 decision to demonetise currency notes of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 denominations.

Pronouncing the majority judgment, Justice Gavai said that the decision-making process cannot be faulted merely because the proposal emanated from the Central government. The bench said there has to be great restraint in matters of economic policy and the court cannot supplant the wisdom of the executive with its wisdom. Justice Nagarathna differed from the majority view, and delivered a dissenting judgment.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor

Tags: JanuarySupreme CourtSeveral supreme courtSupreme court and high court levelCanadian supreme court
Open in App

Related Stories

MaharashtraSupreme Court Clears Way for Local Body Elections in Maharashtra, Retains Pre-2022 OBC Quota

Maharashtra"Local Body Elections Long Overdue, We Are Fully Prepared", Sanjay Raut on SC Order

MaharashtraMaharashtra Local Body Polls 2025: Supreme Court Asks State Commission to Conduct Elections Within 4 Months

EntertainmentSamay Raina and Four Others Summoned by Supreme Court Over Mocking Disabled Individuals

NationalSC Rejects Red Fort Claim by Woman Posing as Mughal Heir: ‘Why Not Fatehpur Sikri Too?’

Politics Realted Stories

MaharashtraPower Struggle in Maharashtra? Gulabrao Deokar, Satish Patil Join Ajit Pawar’s NCP Amid Mahayuti Rift

Maharashtra'Unity Not Just for Elections': MNS Leader Sandeep Deshpande on Possible Thackeray Alliance

PoliticsMurshidabad Violence: Shehzad Poonawalla Slams Yusuf Pathan Over Tea Post, Says, “As Hindus Get Slaughtered…”

PoliticsTamil Nadu Assembly Elections 2026: BJP-AIADMK Join Hands, Palaniswami To Lead Alliance, Says Amit Shah

Politics‘No Injustice to Muslims’: Shiv Sena Leader Manisha Kayande Slams Opponents of Waqf Amendment Bill