NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court stated on Monday the Center is empowered to demonetise ‘all’ collection of financial institution notes Under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed through Justice SA Nazeer, which upheld the Centre’s 2016 demonetisation of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 forex notes through a 4:1 majority verdict, stated a statute should be construed having regard to the legislative intent.
“The power available to the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act cannot be restricted to mean that it can be exercised only for ‘one’ or ‘some’ series of bank notes and not for ‘all ‘ series of bank notes.
“The energy will also be exercised for all collection of financial institution notes. Merely as a result of on two previous events, the demonetisation workout used to be through plenary regulation, it can’t be held that this sort of energy would no longer be to be had to the Central Government beneath sub-section (2 ) of Section 26 of the RBI Act,” the bench, also comprising Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, said.
Senior advocate P Chidambaram, appearing for the petitioners, had argued before the apex court that as per the RBI Act, the government only had the power to demonetise specified series of notes.
The apex court said the modern approach of interpretation is a pragmatic one, and not pedantic.
“An interpretation which advances the aim of the Act and which guarantees its clean and harmonious operating should be selected and the opposite which ends up in absurdity, or confusion, or friction, or contradiction and war between its more than a few provisions, or undermines, or has a tendency to Defeat or break the fundamental scheme and objective of the enactment should be eschewed.
“The primary and foremost task of the Court in interpreting a statute is to gather the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed,” it stated.
The best courtroom stated an interpretation which, in impact, nullifies the aim for which an influence is to be exercised can be hostile to the primary of purposive interpretation.
“Such an interpretation, in our view, rather than advancing the object of the enactment, would defeat the same,” it stated.
“We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention that the word ‘any’ has to be given a restricted meaning taking into consideration the overall scheme, purpose and the object of the RBI Act and also the context in which the power is to be exercised. We find that the word ‘any’ would mean ‘all’ under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act,” the bulk verdict stated.
Justice BV Nagarathna dissented with the bulk judgment on the brink of the Centre’s powers beneath part 26(2) of the RBI Act and stated the scrapping of the Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 collection notes needed to be executed thru a regulation and no longer through notification.
The best courtroom’s judgment got here on a batch of 58 petitions difficult the demonetisation workout introduced through the Center on November 8, 2016.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed through Justice SA Nazeer, which upheld the Centre’s 2016 demonetisation of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 forex notes through a 4:1 majority verdict, stated a statute should be construed having regard to the legislative intent.
“The power available to the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act cannot be restricted to mean that it can be exercised only for ‘one’ or ‘some’ series of bank notes and not for ‘all ‘ series of bank notes.
“The energy will also be exercised for all collection of financial institution notes. Merely as a result of on two previous events, the demonetisation workout used to be through plenary regulation, it can’t be held that this sort of energy would no longer be to be had to the Central Government beneath sub-section (2 ) of Section 26 of the RBI Act,” the bench, also comprising Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, said.
Senior advocate P Chidambaram, appearing for the petitioners, had argued before the apex court that as per the RBI Act, the government only had the power to demonetise specified series of notes.
The apex court said the modern approach of interpretation is a pragmatic one, and not pedantic.
“An interpretation which advances the aim of the Act and which guarantees its clean and harmonious operating should be selected and the opposite which ends up in absurdity, or confusion, or friction, or contradiction and war between its more than a few provisions, or undermines, or has a tendency to Defeat or break the fundamental scheme and objective of the enactment should be eschewed.
“The primary and foremost task of the Court in interpreting a statute is to gather the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed,” it stated.
The best courtroom stated an interpretation which, in impact, nullifies the aim for which an influence is to be exercised can be hostile to the primary of purposive interpretation.
“Such an interpretation, in our view, rather than advancing the object of the enactment, would defeat the same,” it stated.
“We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention that the word ‘any’ has to be given a restricted meaning taking into consideration the overall scheme, purpose and the object of the RBI Act and also the context in which the power is to be exercised. We find that the word ‘any’ would mean ‘all’ under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act,” the bulk verdict stated.
Justice BV Nagarathna dissented with the bulk judgment on the brink of the Centre’s powers beneath part 26(2) of the RBI Act and stated the scrapping of the Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 collection notes needed to be executed thru a regulation and no longer through notification.
The best courtroom’s judgment got here on a batch of 58 petitions difficult the demonetisation workout introduced through the Center on November 8, 2016.