1. DECIFERING THE CONFUSED DEBATE ON DEMONETISATION
Biswajit Das, Advocate, Supreme Court of India.
There are three views on DEMONETISATION doing the rounds in public domain.
One says: it is right, so they did it with their set of views & reasons. Two says: its
wrong on their set of views & reasons. Three Says, its illegal. So it's a war of views
& reasons. While the first two debates are within the realm of policies, the last
debate is outside its purview. The last one is LEGAL.
Govt is always within its right to set its own policies with its own set of risks.
Population either has to live & suffer the same or can debate on it & influence the
Govt against it. They may even force the Govt to change the policy with their views
& reasons.
But I am at a different level altogether, which is legal.
They are not part of any policy but part of human entitlement as an ordinary
feature of Rule of Natural Law which far precedes the existing legal structure
based on legally recognisable rights & liabilities. In other words, I am trying to draw
the dividing line between Policy & Law. Where Policy can't be challenged in a court
of law, a Law can. I do not wish to debate if Demonetisation was right or wrong on
policy front though personally I support it for my own set of views, which I claim
they are just and reasonable.
However, I reject all its consequential dictates of the Govt that followed the
Demonetisation action on 08.11.2016 as I firmly believe those dictates are illegal &
Govt has no power to do it. I also go to this extent of saying that Constitution of
India also doesn't empower Parliament much less the Govt to even make a law on
the proposed/dictates of Govt as they defeats the very basic structure of
Constitutional schemes.
Which are those proposed/dictates of Govt, which can be termed as beyond the
postulates of the Constitution of India? Ponder ...
