Why did the Court reframe the questions of law and fact before it.
Did the lawyers who appeared in 2022 concede on very crucial questions of law. Why?
The same happened in the Aadhar case, when the crucial issue of right to identity and the likelihood of identity theft was not argued by the lawyers who focused on the right to privacy.
Why did Chidambaram argue that Section 26(2) of the RBI Act had to be read down instead of arguing that the demonetisation notification was ultra vires this provision. Shyam Divan's arguments were completely off the mark.
Are the written pleadings and submissions in the case available?
Did the lawyers throw this case? Like they threw the Aadhar case.
I found https://srajagopalan.substack.com/p/supreme-court-of-india-on-demonetization a very interesting read. Its titled Supreme Court of India on Demonetization - A Farce in Three Acts
Also is “Every noble cause claims its martyr” an original Supreme Court quotation?
Here is the link to my 2016 post on Demonetisation
https://seemasapralaw.blogspot.com/2016/11/why-narendra-modis-demonetization-law.html
No comments:
Post a Comment