Indian Prime Minister Modi's abolition of the
unconstitutionality of the old currency
On November 8, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi suddenly
announced that the old currency with face value of 500 and 1,000 rupee would be
stopped immediately. Except for some emergency use in hospitals and road
traffic, the old currency originally held by the public , Allowing each person
to exchange 4,000 rupees in the new currency at bank outlets every day, that
is, each person is allowed to exchange 400 yuan for urgent needs in life. Other
large amounts of currency can only be deposited in banks.
However, the
administrative decree stipulates that when a large amount of currency is
deposited in a bank, sufficient evidence must be provided to prove that the
currency held is legal, otherwise the government has the right to treat these
as these If the currency is black gold or a corrupt transaction, it will be
confiscated or a 40% income tax will be imposed. While promulgating this administrative
decree, Prime Minister Modi explained to the people of the whole country that
his purpose is to curb rampant black gold trading and extremely serious
corruption.
For more than ten days since the decree was promulgated, each bank
branch has been lined up with a long dragon of one kilometer or two kilometers
for currency exchange.
Trade issues and life order have been greatly disrupted
throughout the country, and many trades have almost stagnated. However, only a
small amount of currency is exchanged by the people, and it is simply difficult
to meet the urgent needs of life. In particular, the supply of new currency
issued by the government cannot keep up.
In some places, only 2,000 rupees a
day can be exchanged. This has also led to varying degrees of violence
throughout the country. According to incomplete statistics, it has been there
are nearly 47 people who caused *** or related deaths due to direct or other
indirect inducements.
If it is just social order, if it is only convenience of
life, it may be short-lived, but as far as this law is concerned, the reason
for the great public outrage is that many people in society have obtained
wealth for a long time or decades.
It is stored in cash, because about half of
the people in India do not have an identity certificate or do not have an
identity certificate, and two-thirds of the people have not opened a bank
account, and most of them save by holding cash. In this way, after this decree
takes effect, it means that the large amount of currency held by these innocent
people cannot prove its legitimacy, which leads to property damage.
For a large
number of small trade enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises, cash
transactions are also the mainstay.
In this way, the whole country means that a
large number of people’s property will be degraded or disappeared because of
this law.
We now look at this incident from a legal perspective. In a
civilized society or a modern society ruled by law, the legal property of
innocent people is caused by a decree of the government, and there should be
legal remedies.
On the day of the promulgation of the decree on November 8, Indian media, academics and experts that this decree must be
unconstitutional. I also believe that Indian lawyers will definitely file
public interest lawsuits and declare or declare through judicial review.
The
decree that made Modi’s government was unconstitutional. Sure enough, within
these ten days, nearly seven or eight lawyers across the country filed suits in
the local high courts, requesting the high courts to declare this law of the
Modi government unconstitutional. So far, this case is still under review.
In
the end, whether this provision of the Modi government is unconstitutional or
not, some people personally think it is unconstitutional.
First of all, under a social
and constitutional structure like India, is an independent judiciary sufficient
to deal with or to relieve the losses of these people?
India's constitutional
government It belongs to modern constitutional government, and it is also the
separation of three powers, but compared with the United States or other
democratic constitutional countries, the judicial power of India is more
authoritative and independent.
Historically, it has been effective for the
election of the prime minister, and the unconstitutional review of some laws
and regulations issued by the government
Over the past two hundred years, or
after the establishment of the new government, that is, more than 50 years
after the promulgation of the new constitution. Over the past year, more than
1,000 unconstitutional review judgments have been made. I personally believe
that under the Indian constitutional framework, due to its judicial
independence and authority, it is sufficient to relieve or defend the people's
rights to property losses caused by this decree. After suing this decree to the
high court, the current high level
The judges of the court and the Supreme
Court have put forward their own views on this. They believe that the Modi
government is out of consideration for public interests. This policy of the
Modi government is for the better development of the national economy.
Therefore, a large part of the public and Jurists believe that this decree is
not unconstitutional. But few think this understanding is against the spirit of
the modern rule of law. Few People don't deny that even if Modi is to curb black gold
and corrupt transactions, even if Modi is for the better development of the
country's economy, as long as this law violates the principles of the constitution.
Violation of the principles of human rights and the rule of law will lead to
invalidity and unconstitutionality. We must not harm the legitimate rights and
interests of individuals or a few people for the interests of the country or
the majority. The reason for the existence of constitutional review under the
constitutional framework and the need for an independent Constitutional Court
(Supreme Court) is to eliminate the majority.
The result of the voting, or such
damages the legitimate rights and interests of the minority for the benefit of
the majority. As far as this incident is concerned, it must have harmed the
legitimate rights and interests of a few people. I believe that at least in
terms of procedures and entities, six points are unconstitutional.
According to
the principle of constitutional review, if one of these six points is violated,
it will be Result in invalid:
1. This law violates the principle of trust protection
When
the old currency is in circulation, the public has a basic common sense
judgment on it, that is, in an era of peace, the government cannot suddenly
abolish some currencies in circulation, and the principle of trust protection
also requires any modern government.
The punishment of the incident or the
extent of law enforcement should be connected to a certain extent, or the scale
for the public will not suddenly become higher or lower.
In India, in the past
few decades, the government considered large amounts of cash transactions or
holding large amounts of cash to the people to be legal, but suddenly the
government required the people to prove the legality of holding cash, which
meant that the government suddenly tightened the standards of law
enforcement, which violated the principle of trust protection in the
administrative law.
That is to say, the government made the public always
believe that the previous actions of the government were carried out on such a
scale, but suddenly the scale happened. Change also violates the constitutional
principle of trust protection and is unconstitutional.
2. This decree violates the principle of legal reservation
The Modi government issued this decree through the Ministry of Economic Affairs
under the Ministry of Finance. The modern rule of law country restricts the lives,
health and property rights of citizens or people, and must pass the Congress.
Laws, rather than administrative orders or administrative regulations, can be
used to degrade people’s property or restrict people’s personal freedom. Of
course, there are also individual countries that allow Congress to authorize
the government to make corresponding regulations. But countries in the modern
sense basically do not allow administrative agencies to make such regulations,
stop the circulation of these currencies for so long, or require the public to
provide sufficient evidence to prove that they originally hold the legality of
currency, this regulation directly relates to the derogation of people’s
property, whether it is from the legal principle or the rules of modern
legislation, it should belong to the scope of Congress legislation, and it can
never belong to government agencies or administrative regulations.
Regulations,
so at this point, some people think that the Ministry of Finance of the Modi government,
or not to mention the Ministry of Economic Affairs under the Ministry of
Finance, even the Ministry of Finance, and even Modi’s cabinet, have no right
to make such a property of the people. The derogated administrative
regulations, this administrative regulation will also be invalid.
3. This law violates the principle of non-retroactivity of
the law
Because this law stipulates that the currency held by the people
before the promulgation of this law may lead to violations of the law, or it
stipulates that the people must prove whether the behavior before the
promulgation of the law is legal and prove the source of funds, which means
that this law is retroactive.
In the past, the government today issued a decree
to allow people to prove whether the behavior before the decree is legal or
not, which violates the principle of non-retroactivity of the law.
4. The decree intends to allow people to prove themselves
guilty. The ordinary people have accumulated a large amount of legal currency
and property in decades.
The government now wants the ordinary people to prove
the legality of these holdings. This is similar to self-incrimination, because
in addition to the existing restrictive provisions of the law, such as it is
said that public servants have the obligation to prove the legal source of
their property, otherwise the government has the right to cancel the amount of
the crime of unknown origin. However, the Modi government's actions today
require ordinary people to prove the legal source of their property, that is,
self-incrimination.
If the people cannot prove, the government or
administrative agency has the right to impose income tax or directly confiscate
it. Presumption of guilt.
In a modern civilized society, there is no
presumption of guilt, and people must not be allowed to prove themselves
guilty, unless government agencies produce enough evidence to prove that the
currency held by these people, the people, and even the most powerful and
powerful officials is illegal, nor can it be presumed, confiscation or heavy
taxation.
5. The decree violated the principle of necessity
Judging
from the principle of necessity, the Modi government has repeatedly declared to
the media and society that the reason for this policy is to curb black gold
trading and corruption. But we know that in any modern society, if the
government wants to curb such behavior, it is nothing more than taking measures
such as system construction and increasing supervision, but never a country or
a legal person thinks that curbing black gold transactions or corruption is
related to currency circulation.
In a certain sense, currency is just a trading
tool. A society without currency can still produce a lot of black gold
transactions and corruption with gold bullion and gold bars. Therefore, this
statement of the Modi government is actually very funny and violates Basically
logical.
You can't confiscate all gold because of curbing black gold trading
and corruption. This is one aspect. On the other hand, the logical deduction of
this statement itself is even more absurd. You confiscated and abolished the
old currency of 500 face value, and introduced a new currency of 2000 face
value. This means that if you say that large currencies will lead to black gold
transactions and The emergence of corruption, a new currency that is four times
larger also means that the black gold transaction and the emergence of
corruption have been accelerated four times, so Modi’s reason is obviously
contrary to the basic logic.
In addition, we look at the entire Indian society,
whether it is black gold trading or corruption, in the lives of the people, the
use rate of cash in small and medium-sized enterprises and commercial trade,
its proportion is very small, perhaps only a percentage.
Five or ten percent,
but you can't kill the remaining convenient use of cash and cash transactions
in order to curb these five or ten percent imaginary black gold transactions
and corruption. So from the first point of view, it violates the principle of
necessity, that is, this administrative regulation is not necessary in the
legal sense.
6. The law violates the principle of proportionality. The
so-called principle of proportionality is the promulgation of any
administrative decision or regulation.
The purpose you are pursuing must have a
reasonable ratio to the social cost caused. It cannot be used to pursue those
uncertain or small administrative purposes or governance purposes. And it hurts
a large proportion of social costs.
We have made life judgments and economic
judgments from what the Modi government has explained to the society. I think
that in order to curb black gold trading and corruption, such a legislative or
administrative purpose has caused damage to the interests of the entire society
and the people, or the entire social order. Destruction completely violates the
principle of proportionality.
In summary, no matter which of the above six points is
violated, it will lead to the unconstitutionality of the entire administrative
law and regulations. As far as the entire incident is concerned, I personally
think that the purpose of the Modi government's actions is not to curb black
gold transactions as claimed by the outside world. Or to curb corruption, the
purpose is more likely to promote the devaluation of the entire country's currency
through the issuance of a large denomination currency with a face value of
2,000 yuan, thereby driving the growth of the entire economy. We know that in
today's modern countries, big countries and big countries are in the process of
international trade, the financial war is the most rigorous.
The devaluation of
any country's currency will cause the loss of other countries' economic
interests, and it will also cause devaluation in international trade.
The
country has the upper hand, which is why Trump repeatedly raised the issue of
the strength of the Chinese government's currency devaluation during the
campaign. Modi is a very intelligent politician. He wants to smoothly enhance
the country's economic competitiveness by issuing a 2,000 yuan face value currency
by means of secret storage or shifting the focus, but it is only to curb black
gold and corruption.
As an excuse to quell the social turmoil caused by the
inflation caused by currency devaluation, and the derivative resistance and
demonstrations against the government.
In the second aspect, the Modi
government is likely to want to promote the financial progress of the entire
country, because nearly half of the people in the
entire Indian society do not have an ID card, and most of the people do not
have bank accounts, and the act of requiring currency to be deposited in the
bank will cause the public to open a large number of bank accounts or use
Internet financial tools in a short period of time. This is likely to bring about
the reform of the national financial system and the control of society. Great
promotion.
In any case, in the Indian society, between the opposition
party and the ruling party, such a democratic constitutional society of
oppositional structure and party rotation, in terms of this event, what kind of
social unrest will be triggered, or the whole It remains to be seen in which
direction the political struggle will lead. But in general, judging from the
legal point of view, this behavior must be unconstitutional, and it must be
inconsistent with Indian society's basic pursuit of a modern society under the
rule of law.
