sadalawpublications.com

black money

Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban

Trending Today Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Rush to Trademark ‘Operation Sindoor’ Escalates Amid Ongoing Conflict, with Reliance and Others Filing Claims 21 Northern Indian Airports Closed Until May 10 Due to Military Tensions Near Pakistan Border J&K High Court: Magistrates Can Issue Pre-Cognizance Notices Under BNSS Even in Cheque Bounce Cases Operation Sindoor: India Eliminates IC-814 Hijack Mastermind Abdul Rauf Azhar in Precision Strikes Operation Sindoor: India’s Precision Strikes After Pahalgam Terror Attack Raise Cross-Border Tensions Delhi High Court Sends Dispute Over Netflix’s ‘Emergency’ Film and Coomi Kapoor’s Book to Mediation Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban NITU KUMARI 09 May 2025 Explore the constitutional challenge to demonetisation in India. Understand the Supreme Court’s ruling on the legality of the 2016 currency ban and its implications on the RBI Act, Section 26(2), and the Indian economy. Introduction to the Demonetisation Controversy In 2016, the Indian government implemented a controversial demonetisation policy, invalidating ₹500 and ₹1000 notes to tackle black money, counterfeit currency, and economic subversion. The policy raised significant legal questions, leading to a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court of India. This blog post explores the key aspects of the case Vivek Narayan Sharma vs. Union of India, the legal arguments, and the final judgment delivered on January 2, 2023. Background: The Demonetisation Decision What Was Demonetisation? On November 8, 2016, the Indian government demonetised ₹500 and ₹1000 notes under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The goal was to combat counterfeit money, black market activities, and terrorism funding. However, this sudden move left millions of people struggling with limited access to cash, sparking widespread criticism and legal challenges. The Legal Basis of Demonetisation The RBI Act, particularly Section 26(2), gave the Union Government the power to demonetise any series of banknotes based on recommendations from the Reserve Bank of India’s Central Board. The policy was intended to remove high-value currency notes from circulation, which were believed to facilitate illegal activities. The Constitutional Challenge: Key Issues Raised In the Vivek Narayan Sharma vs. Union of India case, several important legal issues were raised regarding the constitutionality of demonetisation: Does Section 26(2) of the RBI Act Allow for the Demonetisation of All Banknotes?This issue questioned whether the Union Government could demonetise “all” banknotes of a specific denomination or just select series. Excessive Delegation to the Government?Was it constitutionally valid for the RBI to delegate such significant power to the government under Section 26(2)? Was the Decision-Making Process Flawed?Critics argued that the decision-making process behind the demonetisation policy was not transparent or well thought out. Was the Exchange Period Reasonable?The short time frame given for exchanging demonetised notes was questioned for its practicality, especially considering the economic hardship it caused. Supreme Court Ruling: Was Demonetisation Constitutional? On January 2, 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered its verdict on the matter. The case was heard by a Constitution Bench comprising five judges, with a majority ruling in favor of the Union Government. Majority Judgment (4-1) The majority opinion, authored by Justice Bhushan R. Gavai, held that the demonetisation policy was legally valid under the RBI Act, and that Section 26(2) allowed the government to demonetise all series of banknotes. The judgment ruled that the demonetisation policy met the criteria of proportionality and that the exchange period was reasonable. Dissenting Opinion (1-4) Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented, arguing that Section 26(2) should only allow demonetisation of a specific series, not all series. She emphasized that the Union Government should have passed legislation in Parliament for such a significant economic decision. Implications of the Ruling on Demonetisation Policy Legality and Proportionality The Supreme Court’s ruling confirmed the legality of demonetisation and reaffirmed the government’s authority to make such decisions. The Court found that the policy was proportionate to its intended goals of curbing black money and counterfeit currency. Effect on the Indian Economy While the policy aimed to improve the economy by targeting illicit funds, the immediate effects were mixed. Economic slowdown, liquidity shortages, and hardships faced by the common people led to ongoing debates about its long-term effectiveness. Future Legal Precedents The ruling may have far-reaching consequences for similar legal challenges in the future. Justice Nagarathna’s dissenting opinion may influence how future economic decisions are scrutinized in terms of their constitutionality and procedural fairness. Conclusion: A Landmark Decision in Indian Legal History The Supreme Court’s judgment on the demonetisation case brings clarity to the constitutional validity of economic policies and the powers vested in the Reserve Bank of India. While the decision reaffirmed the legality of the demonetisation policy, it also sparked debates about the appropriate balance between government power and individual rights. As India continues to deal with the consequences of demonetisation, this case will remain a key reference for understanding the intersection of economic policy and constitutional law. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of

Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Read More »

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312

Trending Today ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 The Role of Intellectual Property in Promoting Innovation in India Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024. Historic Verdict: Supreme Court Overturns 1998 Ruling P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), Ends Immunity for Lawmakers Taking Bribes for Votes on 4th March, 2024 Supreme Court Overrules Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370 ANIMAL CRUELTY CONTROVERSY: HOW THE 2023 SCC DECISION AFFECT JALIKATTU ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 13 Mar 2025 Table of contents OVERVIEW OF THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CASE KEY PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION ON DEMOCRACY AND POLITICS IN INDIA CRITICISMS AND CONTROVERSIES SURROUNDING CONCLUSION: FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER V UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS SSC ONLINE SC VIDEO OF SUPREME COURT VERDICT REFERENCES OVERVIEW OF THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS The case of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. UOI was a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by ADR, a non-political arrangement occupied towards transparency and accountability in Indian elections. The basic objective concerning this case search out challenge Section 33B (1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RPA), that admitted governmental bodies to withhold facts about their capital beginnings, containing gifts taken from alien companies or things. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CASE The petition was ground for one Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), two non-administration arrangements active towards electoral corrects in the country. The case generally disputed sure supplying of the Representation of People Act, 1951, that admitted political bodies to accept unknown gifts from things or associations through Electoral Bonds. This practice produced concerns about transparency and responsibility in governmental capital, that are critical details of a fair and democratic electing process. The culture chief until this case may be tracked back to the approvals made for one Indrajit Gupta Committee Report on State Funding of Elections in 1998.In order to address these issues, the commission submitted measures to a degree state capital of elections, revelation of electing expenditures by competitors, and better investigation over choosing loan. In line with these pieces of advice, Parliament passed important corrections to the Representation of People Act in 2002, individual being Section 29B (1) that made acquainted a new supplying admitting Electoral Bonds as an additional fashion for making gifts to governmental bodies. However, ADR and PUCL discussed that this correction was illegal as it went against fundamental law like transparency honestly existence, free and fair voting process sure-fire under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 respectively. They more argued that unknown gifts manage conceivably admit illegal services laundering actions through structure associations or external systems outside any responsibility. In reaction, the principal management protected their resolution to introduce Electoral Bonds by way of to advance gifts through legal and obvious channels. Thus, this case nurtured important questions about the balance between secrecy and transparency in electing capital, and allure affect fair and self-governing elections in India. The outcome concerning this case has the potential to shape future tactics had connection with voting loan and advance greater responsibility between governmental bodies and contenders. KEY PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE The case of Association for Democratic Reforms and Another v Union of India and so forth SSC Online SC has collect significant consideration and bred main questions about the duty of services in Indian campaigning. At the heart of this milestone case, there are various key performers the one has existed complicated in differing capacities. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR): ADR is a non-political institution that was made in 1999 accompanying a dream to advance transparency and accountability in Indian government. Union of India: The Union of India refers to the main administration in this place case as it arrange accomplishing standards related to governmental capital and choosing processes. The Ministry of Law & Justice shows the joining before the Supreme Court as respondent no.1. Election Commission of India (ECI): In allure answer to this case, ECI contended that binding announcement grant permission bring about harassment or revenge against benefactors by rival governmental bodies. Law Commission: Law Commission refers to an executive party start apiece Government periodically burdened accompanying learning allowable issues had connection with choosing laws containing campaign finance rules. 5.Member Secretaries – Screen Scrutiny Committee (SSC) & Financial Affairs Subcommittee (FAS): These juries were comprised by ECI later taking afflictions against sure politicians and person in government who makes laws the one had purportedly taken different offerings outside prior consent from ECI. 6.Candidates/Petitioners: The main petitioners in this place case are ADR and Common Cause, presented by advocate Prashant Bhushan. The top court has admitted six additional individual competitors to intervene in the case, disputing their right to see the beginnings of capital taken by governmental parties. LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES The permissible battle betwixt the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Union of India, and so forth, concerning connected to the internet examinations transported apiece Staff Selection Commission (SSC) has been a continuous issue. On individual help, ADR contends that the use of science in administering exams poses a risk to bidders’ data freedom and solitude. ADR’s debate is established Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, that guarantees similarity

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 Read More »