Perspective : Demonetisation Verdict | 02 January, 2023
Summary
TLDRThe Supreme Court of India upheld the 2016 demonetization decision in a 4:1 majority verdict, asserting the process was not legally flawed. The court emphasized the separation of powers, stating that economic policies like demonetization are within the government's domain and not subject to judicial review on merits. The dissenting opinion argued for legislative action instead of a Gazette notification. Panelists discussed the ruling's significance, the impact on cash usage, digital payments, and the broader implications for policy-making and the economy.
Takeaways
- 🏛️ The Supreme Court of India upheld the government's decision to demonetize the 1500 denomination notes, ruling that the decision-making process was not flawed.
- 📜 The majority verdict (4:1) stated that the decision to scrap high-value currency notes was not legally or constitutionally flawed, emphasizing the consultation between the Reserve Bank of India and the government for six months.
- 🔄 Justice B. N. Srikrishna dissented, arguing that demonetization should have been implemented through legislation, not a Gazette notification, citing the need for parliamentary debate and representation.
- 🏦 The Supreme Court's decision is significant as it preserves the separation of powers between the judiciary, executive, and legislature, allowing the executive to govern without judicial review on economic policy merits.
- 💡 The court's focus was on the process of demonetization rather than its objectives or outcomes, highlighting the importance of the consultative process and the proportionality of the action taken.
- 🛡️ The judgment reinforces the idea that economic policies, especially transformative ones, should be within the domain of the government with limited scope for judicial review.
- 💼 Mr. Anand Singh Bell, former principal economic advisor, agreed that the government's monetary policy should be executed based on its consultations and expertise, without judicial intervention on policy specifics.
- 📊 AK Bhattacharya, editorial director of Business Standard, noted that while the Supreme Court validated the demonetization process, it did not address the outcomes or objectives, leaving the debate on effectiveness open.
- 📉 The demonetization exercise led to a significant impact on micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) that heavily relied on cash transactions, with many facing closure or disruption.
- 💡 The government claimed that the benefits of controlling black money, terror funding, and corruption outweighed the adverse effects on certain economic sectors, emphasizing the trade-offs inherent in economic policy decisions.
- 📈 Despite the intention to reduce cash usage, cash in circulation as a percentage of GDP has increased post-demonetization, suggesting that the objective of reducing cash prevalence was not met.
Q & A
What was the Supreme Court's verdict on the demonetization of 1500 denomination notes in India?
-The Supreme Court upheld the decision to demonetize the 1500 denomination notes with a 4:1 majority verdict, stating that the decision-making process was not flawed and the procedure emanated from the government.
What were the main reasons for the Supreme Court to validate the demonetization process?
-The Supreme Court validated the process due to the consultation between the Reserve Bank of India and the union government over six months, adherence to the RBI Act, and the proportionality of the action taken in relation to its objectives.
How did the dissenting judge, Justice B. N. Nagaratna, view the demonetization process?
-Justice B. N. Nagaratna dissented from the majority judgment, arguing that demonetization should have been implemented through legislation rather than a Gazette notification.
What is the significance of the Supreme Court's judgment on the separation of powers in the context of demonetization?
-The judgment is significant as it upholds the separation of powers enshrined in the constitution, allowing the executive to govern the country and make decisions on economic policies without judicial interference on the merits of the case.
What is the doctrine of proportionality mentioned in the script, and how did the Supreme Court apply it to the demonetization case?
-The doctrine of proportionality suggests that the action taken should not be more drastic than necessary to achieve a particular result. The Supreme Court found the demonetization action to be proportional, considering the objectives it aimed to achieve.
What was the period of exchange given for the demonetized notes, and how did the Supreme Court view its reasonableness?
-A 52-day period was given for the exchange of demonetized notes. The Supreme Court deemed this period to be reasonable and not flawed in terms of the process.
How did the panelists on the program view the impact of demonetization on micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs)?
-The panelists acknowledged that MSMEs, which heavily rely on cash transactions, were adversely affected by demonetization. However, the government believed that the benefits of controlling black money and corruption outweighed the negative impacts on these sectors.
What was the government's stance on the objectives of demonetization, according to the panelists?
-The government claimed that the objectives of demonetization, such as controlling black money, terror funding, and tax evasion, were met, and the benefits of these outcomes outweighed the adverse impacts on certain economic sectors.
How did the Supreme Court approach the question of whether the objectives of demonetization were met?
-The Supreme Court refrained from examining the objectives and outcomes of demonetization, focusing instead on the legality and procedural correctness of the decision-making process.
What was the dissenting judge's view on the process of demonetization, and how does it differ from the majority opinion?
-The dissenting judge believed that demonetization should have been carried out through parliamentary legislation, arguing for a more formal legislative process rather than an executive decision.
What was the impact of demonetization on cash usage in the economy, as discussed in the script?
-Despite the intention to reduce cash usage, the script mentions that cash in circulation has increased as a percentage of GDP, suggesting that the objective of reducing cash prevalence was not achieved.
Outlines
📜 Supreme Court Upholds Demonetization Decision
The Supreme Court of India has validated the government's decision to demonetize the 1500 denomination notes, stating that the decision-making process was not flawed and did not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity. The court emphasized the importance of the separation of powers, noting that the decision was an executive economic policy and should not be judicially reviewed on its merits. However, Justice B. Nagarathna dissented, arguing that demonetization should have been legislated rather than implemented through a Gazette notification. The panelists, including Mr. Nigam, an Advocate Supreme Court of India, Mr. Anand Singh Bell, a former principal economic advisor, and Mr. AK Bhattacharya, an editorial director, discussed the significance of the verdict and its implications for the balance of power between the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches.
🏦 Judicial Review and Economic Policy
The discussion focused on the Supreme Court's decision to refrain from judicially reviewing the economic policy of demonetization, highlighting the importance of allowing the government to undertake transformative economic policies without excessive judicial interference. Mr. Bell agreed with the court's stance, emphasizing that the 2016 demonetization was within the government's domain and should be executed in consultation with the RBI. The panelists debated the technical aspects of the judgment, including the process of policy-making and the role of the judiciary in exceptional circumstances only. The conversation also touched on the political implications of the judgment and the ongoing debate about the objectives and outcomes of demonetization.
🗣️ Debate on Demonetization's Legality and Secrecy
The panelists explored the dissenting opinion that the demonetization process should have been conducted through legislation and debated the feasibility of such a process in a country like India. They discussed the necessity of secrecy in demonetization to prevent people from circumventing the policy's intent. Mr. Nigam argued that the secrecy and the consultation with the RBI were crucial, and the decision was made under the right legal provisions. He refuted the claims that the consultative process was not followed and that the decision was based on hearsay or speculation. The conversation underscored the complexity of balancing legal technicalities with the broader economic objectives.
💡 Impact of Demonetization on Economy and Society
The discussion turned to the impact of demonetization on the economy, particularly on micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), which were adversely affected due to their reliance on cash transactions. The government's perspective was that the benefits of controlling black money and corruption outweighed the negative impacts. Mr. Bhattacharya pointed out that while the objective of reducing cash usage was not met, as cash in circulation has increased, the digital payment sector saw a significant boost. The conversation highlighted the trade-offs inherent in economic policy decisions and the ongoing debate about the effectiveness of demonetization.
🔑 The Role of Secrecy and Consultation in Policy Making
The panelists debated the role of secrecy in policy-making, specifically in the context of demonetization. Mr. Nigam argued that the secrecy was essential and provided an added advantage of consultation with the RBI, an expert body on monetary policy. He disagreed with the dissenting judgment's suggestion that the process should have been parliamentary, maintaining that the government has the power to make independent decisions on such matters. The conversation emphasized the importance of expert consultation in the decision-making process and the challenges of maintaining secrecy while adhering to legislative processes.
🎉 Reflections on Demonetization and Future Outlook
In the concluding segment, the panelists reflected on the broader implications of the Supreme Court's judgment on demonetization. They acknowledged the government's efforts to tackle black money and corruption and the impact on digital payments. However, they also recognized the adverse effects on certain sectors of the economy and the political debate surrounding the policy's effectiveness. The conversation concluded with the acknowledgment that while the Supreme Court has addressed the technical legality of the process, the wider debate on the policy's outcomes will continue. The program ended with a note of thanks to the guests and viewers, and a wish for a happy new year.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Demonetization
💡Supreme Court
💡Separation of Powers
💡Economic Policy
💡Legality
💡Proportionality
💡RBI Act
💡Legislation
💡Gazette Notification
💡MSME Sector
💡Digital Payments
Highlights
Supreme Court upholds the government's decision to demonetize 1500 denomination notes with a 4:1 majority verdict.
The decision-making process of demonetization was found not to be flawed, emanating from the government.
The top court ruled that the decision to scrap high-value currency notes had no legal or constitutional infirmities.
There was a six-month consultation between the Reserve Bank of India and the union government before the decision.
Justice Bibi Nagarathna dissented, arguing demonetization should have been legislated, not notified.
The Supreme Court emphasized the separation of powers and the role of the executive in economic policy.
Demonetization was addressed as an economic policy issue, not subject to judicial review on merits.
The court examined the powers given in the RBI Act and the process of demonetization.
The doctrine of proportionality was discussed, with the court finding the action proportional to the objectives.
The period of exchange (52 days) post-demonetization was deemed reasonable by the Supreme Court.
The debate on the objectives and outcomes of demonetization was highlighted as a political issue.
The Supreme Court's judgment was seen as significant for the process of policy-making within the government.
The judgment clarified the limited scope for judicial review in economic policies.
The impact of demonetization on micro, small, and medium enterprises was acknowledged.
The government's claim of achieving objectives through demonetization was contrasted with opposition claims of harm.
The Supreme Court refrained from evaluating the outcomes of demonetization, leaving that to the executive domain.
The dissenting judgment's focus on the process rather than the merits of demonetization was noted.
The feasibility of discussing economic policies like demonetization in Parliament was debated.
The judgment was seen as reaffirming the separation of powers among the judiciary, executive, and legislature.
Demonetization's effect on digital payments was highlighted as a positive outcome.
The increase in cash circulation post-demonetization was discussed as a contrary outcome.
The impact of demonetization on reducing terrorism funding and tax evasion was debated.
The judgment's focus on the legality of the process rather than its objectives or outcomes was underscored.
Transcripts
[Music]
foreign
[Music]
you're watching perspective well more
than six years after the center's
decision to demonetize the 1500
denomination notes the Supreme Court in
a four is to one majority verdict has
upheld the move saying the
decision-making process was not flawed
merely because the procedure emanated
from the government ruling that the
decision to scrap the high value
currency notes does not suffer from any
legal or constitutional flaw the top
Court said there was consultation
between the Reserve Bank of India and
the union government for a period of six
months besides the top Court also
observed that the decision being the
executive's economic policy cannot be
reversed Justice Bibi nagaratna however
dissented from the majority judgment
saying demonetization should have been
done through a legislation and not
through a Gazette notification so with
eminent panelists today we'll analyze
the key points of the Supreme Court's
judgment on demonetization in
perspective pleased to welcome Mr
deshratha Nigam his Advocate Supreme
Court of India and joining us virtually
is Mr Anand Singh Bell he's former
principal economic advisor government of
India and Mr AK bhattacharya editorial
director business standard thank you
gentlemen for joining us on the program
today Mr Nigam allow me to begin the
program today with you your response to
the Supreme Court's judgment on
demonetization and why is this verdict
so significant
energy one thing is very important that
this judgment if it had gone otherwise
would have you know destroyed the
separation of powers that the
constitution enshrines
then executive would not have been able
to run the country govern the country in
the wake of
emerging challenges that we face
the new challenges that are there or the
existing challenges or the old
challenges say for example fake currency
was a problem in this country and our
neighboring country was quite a culprit
in it and then you had Terror funding
and new laws have been made with respect
to Terror funding as well which is one
of them is uapa then about black money
tax evasion these are the issues that
only you know government of the day can
deal with it not the Judiciary hence the
Supreme Court clearly said that since
it's an economic policy and the settle
noise will not judicially review on the
merits of the case but we'll look at the
process of you know
this notification of demonetization
therefore they went into it and saw the
powers given in the RBI Act
now there are two ways of demonetization
one through executive decision through
notification or through legislation or
ordinance
and the dissenting judgment
went on to the fact that it should have
been done through legislation
having its own interpretation of section
26 2 of the RBI act saying any series is
there the word name given is any series
out there rather than all series so the
Supreme Court gave an example Suppose
there are 20 series of a particular
denomination of a currency then it
demonetizes 19 of them and leaves one
series because you are saying it can
only do any series that will lead to
chaotic situation because then people
will not know whether that remaining one
is also fake or not so it gave a very
pertinent example and the consultative
process which is given in 26 section 26
has been followed for six months the
argument was that it was not done
secondly it says the doctrine of
proportionality doctrine of
proportionality in simple terms is
suppose somebody goes for hunting it's a
very limits example
you don't take a cannon to shoot a lion
so what doctrinal proportionality says
the action that executive action or the
administrative action that you take
should not be so drastic
which should not be more than what is
desired for a particular result so it
should be proportional and the Supreme
Court find it to be completely
proportional looking into the objectives
it was supposed to achieve
and and the third it says that the
period of exchange was also not
unreasonable
52 days were given and that was also
reasonable so consultative process
reasonable Nexus uh with the objectives
was also there they said we'll not go
into the objectives because the
government that's a separate field
altogether how much it has been achieved
not achieved it's a executive domain it
can be you know that you can raise
questions in Parliament that's what I am
adding I mean if anybody has a problem
whether you can raise a start question
in Parliament saying that please tell me
how far the objectives have been
achieved of demonetization that the
government is bound to answer if it's a
start question I think the larger debate
is around the objective and the outcome
of the entire procedure but Mr Bell the
fact that the the Judgment today was
largely on the technicality of the
demonetization process do you think it
sort of affirms the fact that when it
comes to economic policies and specially
series of transformative economic
policies that the government is
undertaking there should be either no
scope or restricted scope for judicial
review do you read is that the sense of
the Judgment today
yeah I I totally agree with that
1000 rupee notes taken in 2016 was
within the domain of the government in
in consultation with the RBI the
monetary policy is a
stated objective of Reserve Bank of
India which it executes in consultation
with the government of India so uh the
the freedom to execute its monetary
policy based on its consultations based
on its expertise
aligns totally with the RBI in the
government and the Supreme Court has
very rightly uh decided that the process
was all right and the proportionality
was also not uh out of uh the picture
and hence it has gone ahead and
validated the thing and so this is a
this is a good sign it says occurs well
for the process of policy making in the
government I mean it's it's fairly
obvious it's not rocket science that
policy making should fall within the
domain of the government and the
judicial sort of intervention engagement
should be only on a very exceptional
circumstances and if only if the basic
structure of the Constitution is being
changed here nothing like that was
happening it was a monetary policy taken
in consultation with the RBI based on
the exigencies of the situation and the
government went ahead and did it and
very rightly so the Supreme Court has
not got into whether the objectives were
met in this that is not the domain of
the Supreme Court that lies entirely
with the executive of the government
thank you clearly Mr bhattacharya the
you know the fact that uh the political
debate has revolved around the outcome
so while the government claims that it
has managed to achieve the objectives
with which the policy was brought about
the the opposition's claims have clearly
been on the contrary that it has done
more harm than good and the debate
continued it went to the Supreme Court
and we've seen today the Judgment has
refrained from getting into the
objectives and outcomes because of which
the response is now coming in from the
political parties have once again raised
questions but that leaving aside the
fact that you know uh the separation of
powers is a extremely important and we
keep discussing how it's important for
each of the institutions to remain
within their domains while performing
their uh you know duties their functions
as prescribed by the Constitution do you
think this judgment reaffirms that
separation of power is clearly among the
Judiciary the executive and the
legislature and that is the biggest
takeaway from the Supreme Court's
judgment on demonetization
well there can be little drought
that this judgment
upholds the the legality of the decision
that was taken by the RBI under 26-2 of
the RBI act uh now it's very important
to note that the Supreme Court did not
go into idea the outcome or the
objectives and examined them at all what
it did was to establish that
that that whether the Reserve Bank of
India and the government of India had
the powers uh to to take such a decision
under the relevant laws so I think
that's Point number one that uh Supreme
Courts uh from the verdict from the
Judgment it is very clear that they are
restricting themselves itself to the
legality of that demonetization order
that's Point number one point number two
is that the the order uh does not find
except the dissenting order except does
not find any problem with the government
of India
making a move in consultation
RBI to go ahead uh with the
demonetization decision uh in other
words uh you will remember that on 7th
of November uh the the finance ministry
had sent a note to RBI uh asking the
board to consider what all necessary
steps needed to be taken to tackle the
question of our higher
circulation of of rupees 500 and 1000
rupee denomination notes
so it is on the based on on that on that
note that the RBI Central board met on
8th November afternoon
and took a decision uh to recommend uh
the Declaration of these these notes as
invalid and they were no longer legal
tender so technically uh you know
demonetization is a is a media word uh
it's a it's it's use but actually what
happened was these currency notes were
declared uh declared illegal Tenders in
that sense right that's not Point number
two and point number three and that's my
final point is this that uh whether the
the the the objectives or the outcomes
of the the demonetization decision uh
were desirable were achieved Supreme
Court has remained silent uh and the
jury will probably still remain out on
that issue
right and I think that will keep
lingering on outside of the Court also
Mr Nigam but the fact that you know the
one dissenting judge happens to say that
this the entire procedure was unlawful
uh instead a legislation should have
been brought about it should have been
discussed in Parliament because
Parliament is where you represent the
will of the people so
how much Merit is there in that
observation so each time there is an
economic policy like that is it possible
to discuss it in Parliament get the will
of all the representatives that you know
represent people from across the country
and then bring about such a legislation
in a country like ours how feasible
would that be see the fact is when such
kind of demonetization takes place it
has to be full of secrecy
because if it is declared in advance
people will start you know submitting in
the bank or a huge amount of cash
transactions will start all kinds of you
know things will start to defeat the
entire purpose of legislation so it is
it was done in secrecy so it had to be
done under 26 2 rather than the
legislation and secrecy was the
important ingredient in this kind of
demonetization secondly if you look at
the Judgment of the dissenting judgment
even the lady judge says
the demonetization was well thought of
well-intentioned and well considered
she has mentioned all these words only
she was on the process
in fact she touched the Merit
and said Merit if if we speak on Merit
it is a good thing but process she says
it had to be followed through
parliamentary legislation I have given
you one argument of secrecy second is
earlier to demonetizations had taken
place through legislation but government
has two routes available one under the
RBI Act where the RBI act itself
delegates the powers to the central
government
the RBI itself does not have an
independent function of demonetization
its role is to advise the government if
needed consultation is done to the
central board and the decision has to be
taken by the central government it can
be negative advice it can be positive
advice it is only recommendatory in
nature not necessarily binding on the
central government even if the RBI gives
a negative report don't do
demonetization central government still
has the power
to have its own independent decision on
that applying its own mind and can take
that decision so that's very clear so
what the dissenting judgment says out of
the true process you should follow one
process that is not the intention of the
legislation nor the separation of the
powers between the various organs of the
state it is not even intentional there
if the central government has a power
both under the Constitution and under
the RBI act to take a decision they can
take a decision
a judgment cannot tell the government
out of the do out of the two ways that
you have followed this particular way so
that I think to to that point I'll
disagree uh to that extent and uh the
fact remains I still feel these uh
challenges that had come politically
motivated
and they were caused in legal niceties
and one can easily do it you know saying
it a consultation has not taken place
the fact it is for six months
consultation had taken place so you
would see factually incorrect statements
were also made before the court and of
which there was no evidence the office
they did not have an Evidence it was
mere hearsay mere speculation pleadings
cannot be done if you write in a supreme
court or any court readings cannot be
speculative or based on hearsay this was
completely on the hearsay not even
hearsay it is lying on Earth let me tell
you to say that no consultative process
has taken place and you file an
affidavit with it which is perjury to my
opinion okay Mr Bal you know the the
fact that each of us would be following
what's happening in the Supreme Court as
far as this case was concerned the the
larger point of debate as I mentioned
earlier was of course the outcome so the
government has claimed that a lot of the
objectives that it's set to meet out
have been met out after the 2016
exercise what kind of difference do you
see in achieving those objectives which
of course that the opposition is
dismissing they're saying nothing of
that it's what happened it did more harm
than good in terms of impacting the the
lower ranks of society in terms of the
organized unorganized sector that it
impacted but what is the kind of
difference that you as an economist have
seen the demonetization exercise
bringing to our system
see the demonetization exercise did lead
to
a lot of micro and small medium
Enterprises closing
are being hampered because we all know
that they deal with cash in a huge way
it is an obvious fact that the micro
small and medium Enterprises before 2016
who are dealing with a lot of cash so it
was kind of accepted that once
demonetization is implemented they will
be adversely affected but that was taken
into account and the benefits which the
government and research through
controlling of
you know that um Terror money you know
so black money and to controlling of
corruption
far outweighed in its opinion uh the
impact it would make on the micro small
and medium Enterprises so this was a
fact which was taken into consideration
ultimately economic policy is a lot
about trade-offs the government of the
day in its wisdom had decided that the
benefits which will accrue to it through
implementation of the demonetization uh
process will does far outweigh the
negative adverse impact it has on
certain sections of the economy and
that's how it went on and took the
decision here let me also add you know
even in economic theory the effect of
money supply on prices and output is not
on a one-to-one corresponding it's not
truly well defined anyone who says that
he can control certain levels of
monetary policy and it'll have this
impact on real output and prices is uh
is not correct even the monetary
economists agree that this decision this
link between money supply and real
output and prices is slightly fuzzy and
it's not a one-to-one correspondence
it's not physics that you say you raise
it by two and that will increase by five
that doesn't happen so when it comes to
the final objectives being realized and
all there's a lot of difference in
opinion between the political parties
between experts and all but then that is
the
uh richness and strength of Economic
Policy I mean uh Economic Policy once
you know once uh decision is taken it
can be argued both ways that's a one
thing about economic policy is slightly
fuzzy the objectives also on the ground
are not absolutely clear that it's a
it's not in black and white you know you
can use your filters and see it in a
particular way but I would like to argue
that the government of the day
decide in its wisdom that the advantages
far outweighed the adverse impact it
would have on certain sections of the
economy okay Mr bhattacharya you know
amid the varied opinions on the
advantages and disadvantages of the
entire procedure how would you respond
to the contention and which concerns the
larger public also is that it said it
would reduce the use of cash whereas
when you look at the actual data the
currency in circulation has increased
from 12 percent of GDP in 2010 to about
14 which clearly means that usage of
cash has not reduced post demonetization
and this has been one of the major
arguments that was done so in that
aspect how do you look at the contention
what is your opinion
you asking me yes yes
you know uh you hit the nail on the head
because I think among the many
objectives that demonetization was
supposed to supposed to achieve uh
reduction in the prevalence of cash in
the economy was supposed to be tackled
but I think that objective has clearly
not been achieved as you rightly pointed
out the cash as the share in GDP has
actually gone up uh similarly the tax to
GDP ratio has also remained by and large
the same the msme sector has been
adversely impacted I think in one area
where demonetization has helped is
increasing use of digital digitalization
in terms of the payments space a digital
payment have certainly got a boost uh so
so the the results of of the
demonization uh have been uh actually
uh the actual result has been only on
digital payments on the other front uh
the outcomes has not been to the to the
desired levels in my view I think that
let me just disagree on one issue uh
with Mr negan's point about uh about the
secrecy uh you know secrecy could have
been maintained even through an
ordinance route uh if the government has
chosen to go in for an ordinance Rule
and then later on bring the the bring
the the ordinance into legal debate in
Parliament I think that the lady judge
was probably referring to that uh
remember back nationalization or 1978
demonetization happened through the
ordinance route and then they were
debated now in an ordinance route the
decision is taken right then and say
secrecy can be maintained okay and then
you give Parliament the right to debate
and discuss it and I think the lady just
was referring to that system that
secrecy can be maintained and yet a
process of of law can be followed
through a parliamentary system of debate
and discussion okay would you like to
respond yes
I was saying about secrecy see in this
case also secrecy was maintained but it
had added advantage of RBI consultation
which is an expert body on monetary
policy so that both the advantages the
central government had secrecy as well
as the consultation with the RBI which
is obviously an expert body which deals
with you know currency and monetary
policies so that added Advantage they
had and which which was already provided
under the act now secondly
the when we talk about the objectives it
has achieved today
the size of economy has grown
cash trans cash in in the market being
almost at the same level or more does
not mean it is all black money although
there is a link to it but it does not
mean entirely as a black money so
secondly the if the digital payments
have increased humongously which means
the cash transaction if it had not been
there cash transaction would have been
doubled and at the same time the economy
is very large today we are up we are
aiming for 5 trillion economy and we are
fifth largest economy of the world today
so if if the economy is increasing the
cash component is also increasing but
the fact remains we cannot say the all
is black money it is a fact that the
terrorism in India has gone down there
are various factors into it one of them
is that you have cut the source of
funding
and secondly the tax collection has gone
very high today 1.5 lakh crote per month
which is very high which means to some
extent tax evasion has also been
controlled and at the same time fake
money I remember there was a time this
huge amount of various currency notes
which were there the fake money and the
weather today nobody talks of fake money
today in the market and and at the same
time if you look at the and these are
demonetization was not the only step
government of India found uh you know
sit on black money
the foreign money black money was taken
care of through you know economic
offenders fugitive Act
binami transactions so number of steps
were taken this was not in isolation
mobile Jam platform which was created so
it was it was there was a series and
this was one of the uh factors in
between the government had a very clear
vision and this was one step among many
steps that the government had taken so
whether the merits far outweighed the
demerits or whether you know it impacted
the common man who had to suffer
ultimately because no matter what the
images of people standing in queues the
the impact that it had an unorganized
sector and as Mr Paul mentioned the
impact that it had on on the msme sector
particularly is something that political
parties will continue to bring about so
the outcome is the subject matter of
wider debate which will continue in the
times to come as well but what what the
Supreme Court has done today is address
the technical aspect by saying that the
demonetization process by the government
was not unlawful
in terms of technicality leaving alone
the outcome and object that the court
decided not to get into the Judgment has
been significant in terms of separation
of powers that we keep talking about
between the Judiciary the legislature
and the executive so that having been
said time allows me to take up only that
much on the program today I thank all my
guests for joining me on the program
sharing your thoughts your views with us
and our viewers and to you viewers thank
you very much for your time before we
wind up I would like to wish all of you
a very happy new year take care and
thank you for your time
thank you
foreign
[Music]
関連動画をさらに表示
Justice Scalia Writes Guide for Interpreting the Law
SOSC 1350 - Week 3 - Part 3
Was Demonetization a Disaster? 2016-2022 | UPSC Mains GS3
Supreme Court Approves Sub-Classification for SCs and STs, Overrules 2004 Verdict | UPSC
Judicial Review: Crash Course Government and Politics #21
Walkthrough of the Constitution | Constitution 101
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)