The lone dissenting Justice in DeMo case so concluded, “Demonetisation was, beyond a pale of doubt, well-intentioned. Best intention and noble objects are not under question. The measure has been regarded as unlawful only on a purely legal analysis and not on the objects of demonetisation. The measure was well-intentioned and well thought of. It targeted evils such as blackmoney, terror funding and counterfeiting. The measure is declared unlawful purely on legal grounds and not on the basis of objects.”
Dissenting view in DeMo case is questionable.
How can be secrecy/efficacy maintained through Parliamentary legislation for DeMo ?
Does the Judge know about secrecy/surprise elements so important to ensure its relevance and efficacy ?
Didn’t she recite oath of secrecy of office before being installed in SC as a Justice ?
Will she explain to the nation how DeMo can be enforced after raucous debates, walkouts, proposal being referred to Parliamentary Standing Committee for months and what not ?
What would have been consequences of such an action plan ?