Verdict pertains to recall process, not outcome: opposition

Opposition parties argued on Monday that the Supreme Court order was not an endorsement of the Narendra Modi government's demonetisation decision of 2016 since it pertained only to the procedure followed for the currency notes recall, even as they privately conceded that the majority verdict had put to rest the remnants of their political plank over the issue.

"The Supreme Court has only pronounced on whether Section 26(2) of RBI Act, 1934 was correctly applied or not before announcing demonetisation on November 8 2016. Nothing more, nothing less," said Jairam Ramesh, communication in-charge of All India Congress Committee. "It has said nothing on the impact of demonetisation, which was a singularly disastrous decision. It damaged the growth momentum, crippled MSMEs (micro, small and medium enterprises), finished off the informal sector and destroyed lakhs and lakhs of livelihoods. The verdict has nothing to say on whether the stated objectives of demonetisation were met or not.

Ramesh said the majority verdict dealt with the limited issue of the process of decision-making, not with its outcomes. "To say that demonetisation has been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court is totally misleading and wrong," he said.


Former finance minister P Chidambaram said, "once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared the law, we are obliged to accept it" but added, "The minority judgement brings out the profound distinction between the plenary legislative power of Parliament and the limited power of the executive government. We are happy that the minority judgment has emphasised the important role of Parliament in a democracy. We hope that in future an unbridled executive will not thrust disastrous decisions on Parliament and the people."

On the BJP seeking Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's apology after the verdict, Ramesh argued that if anyone had to apologise it was the PM since demonetisation "destroyed" livelihoods of thousands of families, hit MSMEs and the economy hard, and failed to achieve all the stated objectives.

The CPM polit bureau also argued the judgement "cannot be interpreted as upholding this move" and said "the Supreme Court majority judgement merely upholds the right of the government to take such a decision and in no way endorses the consequences of such a decision".