‘The concern that the IMF has expressed, and which underlies the lowly ‘C’ grade, is not going to be hastily resolved’
| Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

New Delhi:

Supreme Court Judge BV Nagarathna has cautioned against instances of governors sitting indefinitely on bills passed by elected legislatures, referring to the case involving the Punjab Governor.

In her keynote address at the inaugural session of the fifth edition of Courts and the Constitution Conference, held at the NALSAR University of Law here on Saturday, Justice Nagarathna spoke about the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly case as another instance of gubernatorial overreach, where the governor lacked sufficient material to declare the floor test.

“This is not a healthy trend under the Constitution to bring the actions or omissions of the Governor of a state for consideration before constitutional courts,” she said.

“I think I must appeal that the office of a governor, though it is called a gubernatorial post, the governor’s post is a serious constitutional post, the governors must discharge their duties under the constitution in accordance with the Constitution so that this kind of litigation before the law courts is reduced,” Justice Nagarathna added.

She said it was quite embarrassing for the governors to be told to do or not to do a thing.

So, a time has come where they would be now told to discharge their duties as per the Constitution, she said.

Justice Nagarthna’s comments came days after a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud expressed “serious concern” over the conduct of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for his refusal to reinduct DMK leader K Ponmudi as a minister in the state cabinet.

Justice Nagarathna also spoke on her dissent on the demonetisation case.

She said she had to dissent against the move by the central government as in 2016, when the decision was announced, the Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes comprised 86 per cent of the total currency notes in circulation, and 98 per cent of it came back after they were banned.

In October 2016, the Indian government demonetised Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 banknotes, purportedly in a blow against the black money.

“I thought it was a way of converting money into white money by this demonetisation because firstly, 86 per cent of the currency was demonetised and 98 per cent of the currency came back and became white money. All the unaccounted money went back to the bank.

“Therefore, I thought it was a good way of getting unaccounted cash accounted. Therefore, this common man’s predicament really stirred me. Therefore, I had to dissent,” the judge said.

The conference heard addresses from judges of the Supreme Courts of Nepal and Pakistan Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.

Telangana High Court Chief Justice Alok Aradh and NALSAR Chancellor Justice S Ravindra Bhat also spoke at the conference, a press release from NALSAR said. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

File picture of a bank customer depositing ₹2,000 currency note
| Photo Credit: R. Ragu

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has extended the deadline for exchange and deposit of ₹2,000 bank notes until October 7, adding that the denomination will continue to be legal tender even after the date. From October 8, individuals and entities can exchange ₹2,000 notes at RBI issue offices.

The earlier deadline to deposit and exchange the note was today, September 30.

An RBI notification said that deposit or exchange of ₹2,000 notes at bank branches would be stopped from October 8, but can be exchanged at the 19 RBI Issue Offices up to a limit of ₹20,000 at a time.

Individuals and entities within the country can also send ₹2,000 banknotes through India Post, addressed to any of the 19 RBI Issue Offices for credit to their bank accounts in India. Such exchange or credit, said the central bank, shall be subject to relevant RBI and Government regulations, submission of valid identity documents and due diligence as deemed fit by RBI.

However, courts, law enforcement agencies, government departments and other public authority involved in investigation proceedings or enforcement, may deposit and exchange the ₹2,000 notes at any of the RBI Issue Offices without any limit.

According to the data received from banks, of the total value of ₹3.56 lakh crore of ₹2,000 banknotes in circulation as on May 19, 2023, ₹3.42 lakh crore has been received back, leaving only ₹0.14 lakh crore in circulation as at the close of business on September 29, 2023.

Thus, 96% of the ₹2,000 banknotes in circulation as on May 19, 2023 has since been returned.

Mumbai:

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) plays an important role in shaping the country’s economy, and courts should refrain from delving into the monetary regulatory framework, the Bombay High Court said while dismissing a petition alleging wrongdoing by RBI officials during the 2016 demonetisation policy.

A division bench of Justices A S Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh on September 8 dismissed the petition filed by Manoranjan Roy, who claimed to be a tax volunteer, seeking an independent investigation to inquire into alleged wrongful activity and action by certain RBI officials during the demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes.

The bench, in its order, noted that the petition was nothing but a fishing inquiry into what the petitioner perceived to be a scam based on half-baked information.

“The act of RBI in issuing the legal tender is a statutory function backed by expert committees and cannot be called in question on frivolous grounds,” the high court said.

The demonetisation notification issued in 2016 was a “policy decision”, it said.

It is trite that there is a presumption that the policy decision, which was made, is bonafide and in the interests of the public unless found otherwise, the court said.

“It cannot be disputed that the RBI plays an important role in shaping the economy of our country and the courts should refrain from delving into the monetary regulatory framework unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that there is a need for an investigation by an independent agency,” the bench said.

The court further said that in its opinion, there was no ground to seek inquiry or investigation, as the allegations levelled by the petitioner do not demonstrate the commission of the offence.

It noted that since 2016, the petitioner has been persistently seeking an investigation into the functioning of the RBI alleging irregularities and illegalities, but has not supported his claims with cogent material and reports of independent financial experts.

“That not being done, in our opinion, the present petition is nothing but a fishing inquiry into what the petitioner perceives to be a scam based on various figures set out in the annual reports as well as the information given under the RTI,” the court said.

The court held that it cannot rely on “half-baked information” and direct an investigation into the statutory functioning of an institution like RBI.

Roy, in his plea, has alleged that certain RBI officials did not follow proper procedure and helped certain beneficiaries exchange their unaccounted old currency notes during demonetisation.

The petitioner relied on the RBI’s annual report submitted between 2016 and 2018 and claimed that the legal tender of the Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 notes in circulation was less than the figure received after demonetisation.

The petitioner had sought for an inquiry to be initiated for the offences of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and cheating.

“Considering the prominence that the RBI commands in the economic structure, the annual reports of the RBI, which are put in the public domain by the experts, cannot be questioned as being irregular or illegal without any demonstrable criminality,” the court said.

“We find that the petitioner has collated the information from the annual reports of RBI and information received under RTI (Right to Information) and has come with a case that the numerical figures therein reveal discrepancy,” the court said.

This information, however, does not point to the commission of the offence to entail a detailed inquiry or investigation, it added.

While dismissing the plea, the court said it was inclined to impose exemplary cost on the petitioner, but was refraining from doing so at the request of his advocate. PTI SP ARU

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)