Home INDIA “I Had To Dissent”: Justice Nagarathna On Demonetisation Judgment

“I Had To Dissent”: Justice Nagarathna On Demonetisation Judgment

by Alexander
0 comment
Governor's post Seriously, must act according to the Constitution: Supreme Court Justice


Justice Nagarathna spoke about her dissent on the demonetization case.

New Delhi:

Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna has warned against cases of governors sitting indefinitely on bills passed by elected legislatures, citing the case involving the Governor of Punjab.

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

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

“I think I have to argue against the fact that the office of governor, even though it is called a governor’s post, the post of the governor is a serious constitutional post, that the governors must discharge their duties under the constitution in accordance with the constitution, so that these types of lawsuits before the courts are reduced,” Justice Nagarathna added.

She said it was quite embarrassing for governors to be told to do or not do something.

So, a time has come where they are now being told to perform their duties according to the Constitution, she said.

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

Justice Nagarathna also spoke about her dissent on the demonetization case.

She said she had to disagree with the central government’s move because in 2016, when the decision was announced, Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes constituted 86 percent of the total notes in circulation, and 98 percent of them were returned . after they were banned.

In October 2016, the Indian government demonetized Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes, ostensibly as a blow against black money.

“I thought it was a way to convert money into white money through this demonetization because firstly, 86 percent of the currency was demonetized and 98 percent of the currency came back and became white money. All unaccounted money went back to the bank. .

“That’s why I thought it was a good way to get unrecorded cash into the account. That’s why the predicament of this common man really stirred me. That’s why I had to give a dissenting opinion,” the judge said.

The conference heard speeches from judges of the High 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 NALSAR press release said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by WhatsNew2Day staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

You may also like