Cash crunch: Rahul says terror of demonetisation is back
Amethi, April 17: With ATMs suddenly running dry in several states, Congress President Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday said the "terror" of demonetisation has returned to haunt the country, slamming Prime Minister Narendra Modi for what he described as destroying India's banking system.
He took to Twitter to take a poetic dig at the Prime Minister and also spoke to reporters here, alleging that Modi has assured "acchhe din" for fugitive jewellers Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi, leaving the poor of the country high and dry.
"Understand the deceit of demonetisation, your money goes into the pocket of Nirav Modi. Modiji's fascination for (Vijay) Mallya, the terror of note-bandi spreads again. The ATMs of the country are empty again, what is the condition of banks," Gandhi asked on the second day of his two-day visit to his parliamentary constituency.
He criticised Modi for his silence on the banking frauds allegedly committed by the diamond merchants who have fled the country.
"Modiji destroyed the banking system. Nirav Modi fled with Rs 30,000 crore and the Prime Minister didn't utter a word," Gandhi said.
"We were forced to stand in queues as he snatched Rs 500-1,000 notes from our pockets and put them in Nirav Modi's pocket."
He was replying to reporters' questions about the current cash crunch with ATMs running out of notes across the country.
Gandhi dared Modi to allow him to speak in the Lok Sabha for 15 minutes, saying the Prime Minister was scared of speaking in Parliament during the second half of the just concluded Budget Session which was completely washed out in protests.
"Had we been allowed to speak in Parliament on Rafael (jets) issue, Nirav Modi matter, the Prime Minister won't be able to stand," he said.
The Congress President said Modi personally knew Nirav Modi and Choksi and called them by first names "Nirav bhai and Mehul bhai".
"The 'acchhe din' he (the Prime Minister) had promised for the nation have ushered only for 15 persons, including Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi. For the poor of this country, including farmers, labourers and daily-wagers, it is all 'bure din'."
Addressing a public rally after inaugurating more than a dozen developmental projects in Jagesarpur in Amethi, the Congress chief said while the Prime Minister boasted of a "56-inch chest", in reality he has no place for the poor in his heart.
He also targeted the Yogi Adityanath-led BJP government in the state, saying there had been no development in the past one year.
Accusing the Prime Minister of inciting passions on lines of community and religion, Gandhi said the Congress was fighting a battle of ideology with the BJP and would win.
Pointing out how the Union government had waived off loans worth Rs 2.5 lakh crore of the rich and elite, he sought similar debt waiver for farmers.
He said he had once made such a request to Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley but was told there was no such provision.
Gandhi also questioned the track record of the Modi government in providing jobs to the unemployed youth.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
CJI's remark on Krishna Iyer unwarranted, could have been avoided: Justices Nagarathna, Dhulia
New Delhi, Nov 5: Supreme Court judges B V Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia on Tuesday took exception to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud's remark during his judgement related to private properties that the Justice Krishna Iyer doctrine did a "disservice" to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution.
While Justice Nagarathna said the CJI's observations are unwarranted and unjustified, Justice Dhulia strong disapproved the remarks and said the criticism is harsh, and could have been avoided.
The nine-judge bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih pronounced the verdict.
The majority verdict pronounced by the CJI overruled Justice Iyer's previous ruling that all privately owned resources can be acquired by the State for distribution under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
The CJI wrote for himself and six other judges on the bench which decided the vexed legal question on whether private properties can be considered "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) and taken over by State authorities for distribution to subserve the "common good".
Justice Nagarathna partially disagreed with the majority judgement penned by the CJI, while Justice Dhulia dissented on all aspects.
In a separate 130-page verdict, Justice Nagarathna quoted Chandrachud saying, "Thus, the role of this court is not to lay down economic policy, but to facilitate this intent of the framers to lay down the foundation for an 'economic democracy'. The Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution."
Justice Nagarathna said merely because of the paradigm shift in the economic policies of the State, cannot result in labelling the former judges of this court as doing a "disservice" to the Constitution.
"It is a matter of concern as to how the judicial brethren of posterity view the judgments of the brethren of the past, possibly by losing sight of the times in which the latter discharged their duties and the socio-economic policies that were pursued by the State and formed part of the constitutional culture during those times.
"Merely because of the paradigm shift in the economic policies of the State to globalisation and liberalisation and privatisation, compendiously called the 'Reforms of 1991', which continue to do so till date, cannot result in branding the judges of this Court of the yesteryears “as doing a disservice to the constitution," Justice Nagarathna said.
Justice Dhulia said the Krishna Iyer Doctrine or O Chinnappa Reddy Doctrine is familiar to all who have anything to do with law or life and based on strong humanist principles of fairness and equity.
"I must also record here my strong disapproval on the remarks made on the Krishna Iyer Doctrine as it is called. This criticism is harsh, and could have been avoided...
"It is a doctrine which has illuminated our path in dark times. The long body of their judgment is not just a reflection of their perspicacious intellect but more importantly of their empathy for the people, as human being was at the centre of their judicial philosophy," Justice Dhulia wrote.
Justice Nagarathna, who is set to take over as India's first woman CJI in 2027, said such observations emanating from this court creates a concavity in the manner of voicing opinions on judgments of the past and their authors by holding them doing a disservice to the Constitution.
She said such observations imply that they may not have been true to their oath of office as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
"I may say that with passage of decades after the enforcement of the Constitution and on India becoming a Republic, the transformative impact of the Constitution has been deep and pervasive not only on governance in the country, whether at the central, state or local level but its impact on the Indian judiciary is also a significant aspect of Indian constitutional development.
"As a result, the basic features of the Constitution including the Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, Separation of Powers, Judicial Review and Independence of the judiciary have impacted both governance as well as the judiciary," she wrote.
The top court judge said bearing in mind the goals of the constitution, it is the obligation on the part of this court to consider the correctness of such legislation in light of the vision of the framers of the Constitution as well as the transformative nature of the Indian Constitution and the intent of the policy makers and the law.
"It is in the above background that the Judges of this court have been deciding constitutional issues over the decades. Of course, no particular line of thinking is static and changes are brought about by the State by bearing in mind the exigencies of the times and global impact particularly on the Indian economy.
"Such attempts to create an environment suitable to the changing times have to be also appreciated by the judiciary, by suitably interpreting the Constitution and the laws. But by there being a paradigm shift in the economy of this country, akin to Perestroika in the erstwhile USSR, in my view, neither the judgments of the previous decades nor the judges who decided those cases can be said to have done a disservice to the Constitution," Justice Nagarathna said.
