This is not the first instance where the court has acted in favor of the executive, without undertaking a thorough juridical review of the proceedings, writes the author.
Author
Deepanshu Mohan, Associate Professor of Economics and Director, Centre for New Economics Studies (CNES), Jindal School of Liberal Arts and Humanities, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India.
Summary
The Supreme Court’s Demonetisation verdict, apart from the manifold reactions it attracts, stresses the need to contextualise the matter from a socio-economic perspective.
The Centre earlier said that demonetisation was a “well-considered” decision and part of a larger strategy to combat the menace of fake money, terror financing, black money, and tax evasion.
Gautam Bhatia, a constitutional law scholar, recently wrote an excellent piece discussing the constitutionality of the deliberated matter by the apex court and the pressing constitutional issues in hand here, particularly of “judicial evasion” committed by the Supreme Court seen to be acting in favour of the Executive.
This is not the first instance where the court has acted in favor of the executive, without undertaking a thorough juridical review of the proceedings.
I quote Bhatia, here:
“A large number of the orders after 16 December 2016, involve the court granting ‘one final opportunity’ to the respondents to file counter-affidavits. Ultimately, what the record reveals is that the Supreme Court simply wasn’t interested in hearing the demonetisation case while its orders may still have had some bite.
This is why, despite the petitioners’ gallant attempts to demonstrate that the issue is not academic, one is left distinctly unconvinced. Because even if this bench were to buck the trend of judicial deference to the executive, find that demonetisation was unconstitutional, and lay down standards and principles ‘for the future’, this would be of no use if, when that hypothetical future arrived, a future court once again simply evaded deciding the case until it became a fait accompli.
As the long-pending challenges to the reading down of Article 370 and the constitutionality of electoral bonds show, judicial evasion remains very much a part of the court’s repertoire at the moment.”
Published in: The Quint
To read the full article, please click here.
