6 years on, people of India still smarting from deadly note-ban blow

News Network
January 2, 2023

noteban.jpg

New Delhi, Jan 2: The father with money in the bank but none to pay vendors for his daughter’s wedding, the retailer scrounging for funds to keep business going, the house help who didn’t get a salary for two months.

On Monday, these and many other similar tales of hardship became alive again, when the Supreme Court upheld the government's November 8, 2016 decision to demonetise Rs 1000 and Rs 500 denomination notes.

The decision, touted by the government to be a 'surgical attack' on black money, missed its mark by a great margin and became the bane of the daily-wage labourers and poor Indians, a section which relies almost exclusively on cash.

To 38-year-old house help Parvesh, even the mere mention of the word 'notebandi' sends a shiver down her spine.

The single mother of a 20-year-old son said she was forced to work without a salary for almost two months and went empty stomach for days at a stretch.

"It was the worst time of my life. Worse than even Covid-19, because during the Covid there was at least some help from the government and society at large. But during demonetisation, we are left alone to suffer," said Parvesh.

"I mean how can I expect my employer to help me when he himself was struggling with money?" she said, having little to no idea about Monday's Supreme Court verdict.

The SC in its verdict said the decision-making process behind the 2016 demonetisation was "not flawed."

In a five-judge bench, four judges voted in favour of upholding the note-ban decision-making whereas one judge dissented.

The pain was not limited to the poor, and the middle class too struggled to understand the withdrawal rules that cascaded with everyday regularity in the wake of demonetisation. Nor was it any more inured to the agony of standing in the unending queues before the ATMs, which too often ran out of cash, and too early.

Many small-scale businesses are still reeling from demonetisation.

"Our business relies on cash and this makes it impossible for us to function properly and run our business. A limited time was given by the government to exchange the cash left with us, we were in continuous confusion about whether we should do business or stand in long queues for hours to get our cash exchanged," Manish Shah, a Surat-based retailer, recounted.

"The whole business cycle was disrupted in the entire country," he added.

For Jammu-based Rajendra Gupta, the cash crunch due had turned the once-in-a-lifetime occasion of his only daughter's wedding into a nightmare.

He recalled how he was made to beg for his own hard-earned money to pay the vendors so that preparations could go on without a hitch.

"I didn't have enough money to pay the vendors. There was a limitation on how much money you could withdraw from banks. And then the government's continuous flip-flop on rules and regulations and whatnot," he said.

An unprecedented rush at her workplace with hundreds scrambling to get inside was the last thing Taniya Sharma, then a trainee at a leading bank in New Delhi, thought she would witness in the initial days of her career.

"There were scuffles, sights of people crying, some even collapsing -- I saw it all. Those scenes continue to haunt me till today," Sharma recalled. "The verdict does little to victims of those times."

According to reports, several people died in different parts of the country while standing in queues for money withdrawal and exchange of the scrapped notes.

In March 2017, months before the status quo would return, the Union government said it had "no official report" on how many people died in queues.

"No such official report has been received," Minister of State for Finance Arjun Ram Meghwal had then said in a written reply in the Lok Sabha. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 21,2024

netanyahu.jpg

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former minister of military affairs Yoav Gallant over war crimes against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

The court’s Pre-Trial Chamber I issued warrants of arrest for Netanyahu and Gallant "for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least 8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024, the day the Prosecution filed the applications for warrants of arrest”, it confirmed in a statement Thursday.

It is the first instance in the court's 22-year history it has issued arrest warrants for Western-allied senior officials.

In its statement, the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber I, a panel of three judges, said it has rejected appeals by Israel challenging its jurisdiction. 

The chamber said it has decided to release the arrest warrants because "conduct similar to that addressed in the warrant of arrest appears to be ongoing", referring to Israel's ongoing onslaught on Gaza.

Netanyahu and Gallant, it said, “each bear criminal responsibility” for “the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts,” as well as “intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.”

All 124 states that signed the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court, are now under an obligation to arrest the wanted individuals and hand them over to the ICC in the Hague. 

The court relies on the cooperation of member states to arrest and surrender suspects. The Netherlands' foreign minister quickly said his country was prepared to enforce the warrants while 93 nations earlier reiterated their support for the ICC.

Triestino Mariniello, a lawyer representing Palestinian victims at the ICC, called the warrants "a historic decision".

He noted that the court had endured "pressure and threats of sanctions" from the US government, but acted nonetheless.

As expected, the Tel Aviv regime rejected the rulings, with its security minister Itamar Ben Gvir calling the warrants “anti-Semitic through and through.”

The ICC said Israel’s acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction was not required.

Israel and its major ally, the United States, are not members of the court. 

Israel unleashed its bloody Gaza onslaught on October 7, 2023. So far, it has killed at least 43,985 Palestinians, mostly women and children, and injured 104,092 others, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.

Israel faces an ongoing South Africa-led genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 14,2024

srirang.jpg

Bengaluru: The Prime Minister Narendra Modi led union government has requested the Karnataka High Court to direct the Mandya district administration and the state government to clear a madrasa operating within the premises of the historic Jama Masjid in Srirangapatna.

The Waqf Board, opposing this move, has claimed the mosque as its property and defended the right to conduct madrasa activities there.

The matter was brought before a division bench headed by Chief Justice N V Anjaria following a public interest litigation filed by a person named Abhishek Gowda from Kabbalu village in Kanakapura taluk. The petition alleged “unauthorised madrasa activities” within the mosque.

Representing the Central government, Additional Solicitor General of India for High Court of Karnataka, K Arvind Kamath argued that the Jama Masjid was designated as a protected monument in 1951, yet unauthorised madrasa operations continue there.

He noted that concerns over potential law and order issues have so far prevented any intervention. Kamath urged the court to direct the Mandya district administration to take action and vacate the madrasa from the mosque.

In defence, lawyers for the state government and the Waqf Board contested this request, stating that the Waqf Board had been recognised as the owner of the property since 1963 and, thus, conducting madrasa activities there is lawful.

After hearing both sides, the bench adjourned the case for further arguments, scheduling the next hearing for November 20.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.