On 16 November 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the demonetisation of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 notes. Now, six years after the mammoth exercise – which was praised by many and criticized by many, including the opposition, the Supreme Court has upheld Narendra Modi’s decision in a historic 4-1 majority decision. The majority decision said that it was “not relevant” whether the purpose of the overnight ban had been achieved.
Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian found no fault in the November 8 decision, saying it was taken after consultation between the RBI and the central government.
Justice BV Nagarathna, however, disagreed with the majority decision, saying that the entire series of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes should be demonetised through a law and not through a gazette notification as Parliament has the power to issue such notes. In case can not be left aside. critical importance. She said that the demonetisation exercise was “illegal”.
She also differed with the majority view on the point of Centre’s powers under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act. “When the proposal for demonetisation originates from the Central Government, it is not covered under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act. It is the way of law, and if privacy is required, then through an ordinance,” Justice B V Nagaratna said.
Justice BV Nagaratna, the lone woman on the bench, said demonetisation of an entire series of currency notes at the instance of the Center is a far more serious issue which has a wider impact on the economy and citizens of the country. “In my view, the power of the Central Government being vast, should be exercised by way of absolute legislation rather than an executive act by issuing notification. It is necessary that the Parliament, consisting of the representatives of the people of the country, should discuss the matter and then approve the matter.”
However, the judge said that she was not questioning the objectives of the exercise itself, but only the legal approach. “Demonetisation was, beyond doubt, well thought out. Best intentions and noble things are not in question. The measure has been held illegal only on a purely legal analysis and not on the objects of demonetisation,” he said, calling the decision “well-intentioned and well-thought-out”. targeted.
Who is Justice Bibi Nagaratna? Here’s a closer look.
In August 2021, BV Nagaratna was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court from a judge of the Karnataka High Court. With her elevation, she will be in line to become the first woman Chief Justice of India in 2027 – a historic moment for the Indian judiciary. When she becomes the CJI, she will follow in the footsteps of her father ES Venkataramaiah, who was the CJI for about six months in 1989.
Born on 30 October 1962, Nagaratna started her career when she enrolled with the Karnataka Bar Council in 1987 and practiced Constitutional Law, Commercial Law, Commercial Law and Administrative Law.
In February 2008, she was appointed as an Additional Judge in the Karnataka High Court and two years later, she was made a permanent Judge.
In November of the following year, BV Nagaratna made headlines when she and two judges of the Karnataka High Court were locked in a room by a group of protesting lawyers. She was later quoted as saying, “We are not angry, but sad that the bar has done this to us. We have to hang our heads in shame.”
Her landmark decision
As a judge in the Karnataka High Court, she presided over some of the major cases of education policy. A bench headed by him directed a committee of experts to submit a draft roadmap for improving the infrastructure of facilities in government schools.
She was hailed for her decision to direct the state government to ensure wider access to online classes, during the coronavirus pandemic. “Pandemic or not, children’s education must go on,” she kept saying.
She also monitored the migrant crisis during the pandemic and on 30 May 2020 directed the state government to file its “systematic plan” to facilitate the transportation of over 6,00,000 migrants who are yet to return to their states.
Along with Chief Justice Oka, She also directed the state government to make adequate arrangements for food and water for the migrants traveling in Shramik trains. Based on her comments, the state government decided to bear the travel expenses of the migrants to their native states.
She has also pointed out the patriarchal way of the society during a divorce case in 2020. In her order, she had said, “People always talk about women empowerment, but society does not know how to treat an empowered woman.” Parents don’t teach their sons how to behave with a strong woman. It’s a problem with men, I’ll say.”