The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with the Narendra Modi government's decision on demonetisation and emphasised that 'these are matters of fiscal policies.' The apex court also restricted all high courts from hearing the issue and stayed proceedings, hence transferring all of them to itself.
Emphasising that the government is the best judge, the court also refused to extend dates for exemption of old Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes for certain services.
The court said that the constitutionality of the government's move and other associated questions relating to the policy will be referred to a five-judge constitutional bench. The court also added that the government should try to honour its commitment on weekly withdrawal of Rs 24,000 per person.
The latest development in the demonetisation hearing can be traced to December 9 when Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, said that judicial review of the fiscal policy is "impermissible." The Supreme Court's order on Friday, in principle, seems to agree with the sentiment.
However, now we again revisit the question: Is it really 'impermissible' for the apex court to hold judicial review on fiscal policy?
"Despite popular opinion that might hold the Supreme Court as excessively interventionist, India's judiciary has historically shown a reticence in interfering in matters of economic policy. For the most part, the court has been justified in acceding to the executive's expertise," The Hindu's legal expert Suhrith Parthasarathy wrote in a piece titled 'Contours of a challenge' published on December 2.
"But while there is certainly a kernel of rationality to such a theory of limited judicial review, it is dangerous to see judicial deference as forming part of an immutable doctrine. As the former President of the Israeli Supreme Court Aharon Barak had once observed, separation of powers exists to strengthen freedom and prevent the concentration of power in the hands of one governmental actor in a manner likely to harm the freedom of the individual," he added.
