Justice B.V. Nagaratna, who is a member of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, said that whatever the objectives of the demonetisation, the method adopted by the central government to implement it is illegal. Canceling all series of 500 and 1000 notes is a more important step than canceling any one series. It cannot be done by mere gazette notification. Even if it was to maintain confidentiality, the government should have issued ordinances or passed laws.
Justice Nagaratna also completely disagreed with the majority judgment on the powers conferred on the Central Government by the Reserve Bank Act. The second sub-section of section twenty-six of the RBI Act says and ‘Any Series’ note The meaning of In all the seriesNot the note. Therefore, it is pointed out in the dissenting judgment that the central government has exercised powers not provided by law.
Justice Nagaratna’s judgment also strongly accused the Reserve Bank of not exercising due diligence in the matter of demonetisation. “As per the will of the central government…‘ is in the RB documents related to demonetisation. According to the Reserve Bank Act, the RBI Central Board should have independently recommended demonetisation. According to the dissenting judgment, this should have been implemented not as per the government’s instructions.
Justice B.V. Nagaratna also opined that whether the government’s action is right or wrong should be judged on the basis of legal provisions and not on the basis of what was intended by demonetisation.
Notes Ban Order “Unlawful”, “Vitiated”: Dissenting Supreme Court Judge