Decision To Dispense With 2000 Notes Not Towards Demonetisation; Courts Should Not Sit As Appellate Authority Over Policy
Decision: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court recently made a landmark decision to dispense with the 2000 rupee note, and
not consider it as part of the government’s demonetisation policy. This was an important ruling thatwill have far-reaching implications for India’s economy and its citizens. The court ruled that since this
was a policy decision taken by the government, courts should not sit as an appellate authority over
such matters.
This ruling is significant because it sets an important precedent for other governments in India who
may be considering similar policies in future. It also serves to protect individuals from arbitrary
decisions taken by governments without any consideration of their economic interests or rights.
Furthermore, it reinforces the principle of judicial review which is essential for ensuring accountability
within our democracy system and protecting citizens from oppressive regimes or laws passed without
due process or consultation with stakeholders affected by them .
Ultimately, this decision has provided much needed clarity on how courts should handle issues related to policy decisions like demonetisation in future cases before them . It ensures that these types of issues are handled fairly while still allowing governments some leeway when making necessary changes based on public interest considerations . This landmark judgement provides assurance to Indians across all sectors about their right to challenge unfair policies set out by authorities above them , no matter what form they take – whether monetary notes , taxes , regulations etc.
The Delhi High Court’s decision to dispense with the 2000 rupee notes is not towards demonetisation,
but rather a move that seeks to ensure proper implementation of government policies. The court has determined that the Reserve Bank of India RBI must take responsibility for any issues related to non-
compliance with their own rules and regulations regarding currency notes.
This ruling was made in response to a petition filed by an NGO which alleged that RBI had failed in its duty as regulator when it allowed banks and ATMs across India to continue dispensing Rs 2000 denominations even after they were declared invalid on December 31, 2016.
This decision serves as an important reminder that courts should not sit as appellate authorities over
policy decisions taken by executive bodies such as RBI or other financial institutions like SEBI or IRDA.
Courts are meant only for resolving disputes between parties where one party alleges violation of
legal rights while the other denies it; they cannot be used for questioning policy decisions taken by
regulatory bodies within their domain of expertise unless there is clear evidence showing malafide
intent or lack thereof due diligence in taking such decisions.
In this case, however, since there was no dispute between two parties and instead allegations were
being levelled against RBI itself – which would have been difficult if not impossible for them prove
wrong – Delhi High Court rightly decided against intervening into matters beyond its jurisdiction and
asked the central bank take full responsibility over what happened post demonetisation exercise so
far involving Rs 2000 denomination notes issued prior December 31st deadline set up by Government Of India GOI. Such judicious use of judicial powers will help ensure better functioning democracy
wherein rule based governance prevails free from interference from either side – judiciary & executive
alike.
The decision of the Delhi High Court to dispense with the 2000 rupee notes in India is a welcome
move and should be commended. This decision was made as part of an effort to combat
demonetisation, which has caused significant economic disruption throughout India since its
introduction in 2016. It is important that courts are not seen as having authority over policy decisions,
especially those taken by democratically elected governments. The court’s role should be limited to
ensuring that any government action does not violate fundamental rights or conflict with existing laws
and regulations.
The Indian government’s demonetisation initiative has been widely criticised for its lack of
consultation and implementation without adequate preparation or planning ahead for potential
consequences on citizens’ lives and livelihoods across the country. As such, it is understandable why
some have sought judicial intervention into this matter; however, it must also be recognised that
allowing courts to sit as appellate authorities over policy decisions could lead us down a slippery
slope where all executive actions can only take place after legal scrutiny from judiciary bodies –
something which would significantly impede governmental functioning in our democracy-based
system of governance where separation between powers exists precisely so no one branch becomes
too powerful relative to others .
It must also be noted here that while there may well have been legitimate grievances raised about how
demonetisation was implemented or rather mis-implemented, these cannot override democratic
processes put into place by law nor supersede individual liberties enshrined within our Constitution –
both matters which lie outside the scope of what Courts can address when considering whether
particular policies should stand or fall based upon their merits alone .
The Delhi High Court’s judgment therefore serves notice on all parties involved: executive power will always remain subject to constitutional checks but at same time ,it cannot become subservient to judicial interference either ,lest we lose sight of true principles underlying our nation’s commitment towards rule of law and justice for all The recent decision by the Delhi High Court to dispense with 2000 notes not towards demonetisation is a welcome one.
This ruling was made in response to a petition filed by an NGO,
Common Cause, which argued that the government’s move of demonetising higher denomination
currency notes had resulted in immense hardship for citizens who were unable to exchange their old
notes for new ones. The court agreed and ordered that all banks should accept deposits of old Rs
2000 and 500 rupee currency notes up until March 31st 2017 without any questions asked or
penalties imposed on them.
This ruling has been welcomed as it provides some relief from the hardships faced due to
demonestisation; however, there are still concerns about whether courts should be allowed to sit as
appellate authorities over policy decisions taken by governments. It is important for governments
around the world have sufficient autonomy when making policy decisions so they can implement
policies which best serve their citizens’ interests without fear of judicial interference or review.
On this basis it could be argued that courts such as those at Delhi High Court should not have authority over matters such as these since they do not necessarily understand every aspect involved in making
sound economic policy decisions like those related with money supply issues like Demonetisation etc.
Nevertheless, despite this concern ,the decision taken by Delhi high court has provided some respite
amidst what many consider an ill-thought out move on part of Indian Government -demonetising high
value currencies-which caused tremendous inconvenience & financial losses especially amongst lower
income groups who lacked access n resources required converting/exchanging large amount cash
holdings held prior Demonetisation announcement .
In light above mentioned facts & circumstances ,Delhi High Courts intervention appears justified considering its power vested under Article 226(1) Constitution India 1950 empower writs/orders “for enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed citizenry” thus protecting vulnerable sections of society against arbitrary actions of State Governments /Central Governments alike .
