congress-reacts-to-supreme-court's-decision-on-demonetisation,-jairam-ramesh-surrounds-modi-government
At the same time, former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram said on the Supreme Court's decision that the decision given by a majority of 4:1 has clarified the question whether the objectives of demonetisation were achieved? The senior Congress leader said in a tweet, once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared the law, we have to accept it. However, it is necessary to point out that the majority has not upheld the wisdom of the decision, nor has the majority concluded that the stated objectives were achieved. In fact, the majority has clarified the question whether the objectives were achieved or not, he said. "We are happy that the minority verdict has pointed out the illegality and irregularities in demonetisation," he said. This may be a mild rebuke to the government, but it is welcome nonetheless. He said that the dissenting judgment would go down in history as one of the famous dissents in the history of the court.

You can share this post!

Related News

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

At the same time, former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram said on the Supreme Court’s decision that the decision given by a majority of 4:1 has clarified the question whether the objectives of demonetisation were achieved? The senior Congress leader said in a tweet, once the Hon’ble Supreme Court has declared the law, we have to accept it. However, it is necessary to point out that the majority has not upheld the wisdom of the decision, nor has the majority concluded that the stated objectives were achieved. In fact, the majority has clarified the question whether the objectives were achieved or not, he said. “We are happy that the minority verdict has pointed out the illegality and irregularities in demonetisation,” he said. This may be a mild rebuke to the government, but it is welcome nonetheless. He said that the dissenting judgment would go down in history as one of the famous dissents in the history of the court.