[sachinpk]

Originally Posted by diyguy

Do we have the "referendum" in our constitution so that general public can weigh in on matters that have wide ranging impact? why is it that this is not being used, if there is such a provision?

No such provisions exists in the Constituition. BTW, also understand that "referendum" could also lead to policy paralysis in a country like ours where each person may have multiple opinions on the same topic . "Argumentative Indians" we are for sure. Our Constituition is also loosely based on what was used in the Irish Republic, is what I remember (studying Civics).

I also know it cannot probably be applied in this specific case of the demonetization drive but any other such policies that impact the true majority of the population, it should go for a referendum in my opinion

A referendum on demonetisation would lead to two things in India. People may not be able to reach a unanimous decision, where as black money hoarders also would know what is going to hit them. Plus we are also giving a chance to the black money hoarders to have a vote in the "referendum" as well.

An ex could be the Jallikattu ban in Tamilnadu.

That issue is more of judiciary and executive stepping on each other's shoes; is what I feel. If what I read in ToI is true then there was an "unofficial referendum" on Jallikattu, and people just decided to have Jallikattu .

Mean while IMF and UN does not seem to decide on India's GDP number. Yesterday IMF pegged it as 6.6% growth, where as today UN feels it is 7.7%. Now if World Bank feels it is actually 8.8% growth, I would be really happy. So much for the international expert opinion.
UN puts India’s GDP growth at 7.7% for 2016-1

[Chetan_Rao]

Referendums work well in an ideal world on the presumption that everyone will make an informed choice after considering all available options thoroughly.

In the real world, a good chunk of people will make emotionally-influenced decisions they may regret later, but cannot change.

I may have a certain opinion on a topic I feel strongly about, but may lack the complete picture needed to make an informed choice when required to vote on it. If I know better in the future and regret my vote, it's still binding once I cast it, not subject to change with my opinion.

Swell idea in theory though.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by binand

Even on the 50th day (29/12), the PM was clear that the objective of the demonetisation effort was to tackle black money, corruption and other anti-national activities, exactly what he said on 8/11. Please read this interview:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/n.../1/845224.html

Sorry, I should have said goal posts instead of goals. The goals remain the same, but the govt understood that a demonetisation alone cannot do much to stop black money. Initially the talk was about a decisive policy to stop black money. Now after more than 2 months, not even one corrupt politician was caught. So they started talking about the long term benefits of demonetisation. This is how they are changing the goal posts.

Originally Posted by binand

That nobody was caught is factually incorrect; in fact many BJP leaders have been caught, not to mention the TMC stalwarts, IAS officers, bank officials, government nominees (can't look up all the names/links, but these have all happened). I was actually thinking the IT department has probably conducted more high profile raids in December alone than compared to the aggregate of the 11 months prior to that.

And please read the transcripts of the PM's speech and interview - the aim of demonetisation was to bring the hidden black money out into the open. I believe it has achieved that objective. The cost to the nation? That only time can tell.

Black money estimates given by govt in 2012 was $500 billion, most of which is overseas (Link). How much have they caught? Also, no politician worth any salt has been caught. Govt has full control of all the tax and law enforcemnt authorities. Why are they not catching the big shots?

Bringing black money into the open is debatable. Many people have already converted their old currency black money into new ones. The tax authorities are only catching the smaller sharks.

[Nav-i-gator]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

At first I found this argument funny, and after further thoughts a dangerous one.
Are governments so powerless that they need to stoop to the levels of these crooks to fight them?
Do we expect government to change policies and rules like a banana republic to tilt at windmills while honest citizens bear the brunt?
Do we expect the government to take away the very things terrorists seek to take away from us - stability, security & freedom in the name of catching these terrorists?

Please think again, this is the folly of all so called nationalist thinkers, forcing people to play by arbitrary rules while allowing a free hand to the government , allowing it to make a mockery of existing rules & institutions in the pursuit of so called (and shifting) goals for the betterment of the nation.

I See a lot of "pseudo-liberals" and "so-called nationalists" used here in various posts from various members.

I believe, both are used in a disrespectful way. But then "freedom of expression"

Fight against corruption (if we can call it that) cannot be a handicapped match as in - govt should weed out corruption bearing in mind:

1. no common man gets adversely affected
2. No poor should be affected at all
3. No rules would be changed. All steps govt planning to take should be made public well in advance and no rule change is allowed
4. A dalit politician's brother's account would not be touched and all ATM's should be segregated basis the religion of people living close to it, prioritizing a certain religion. Plus, none of the other political party members should be questioned or raided
5. The policies itself should only bear the name/surname of a certain political clan
6. PM should hand over all decision making to either Delhi CM or to Grand old party's VP or anyone else from a lot of sundry party chiefs (who all want to be PM themselves)
7. In the end, Govt should concede that the whole policy, implementation and its outcome have failed and PM should resign.

P.S. I am just sarcastically combining all the "political prejudices", not meant to offend any Tbhp Member here.

[Samurai]

Gentlemen, the discussion in the last couple pages have nothing with do with demonetization. Kindly stick to the topic and don't deviate into politics - Support Team

[binand]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Sorry, I should have said goal posts instead of goals. The goals remain the same, but the govt understood that a demonetisation alone cannot do much to stop black money. Initially the talk was about a decisive policy to stop black money. Now after more than 2 months, not even one corrupt politician was caught. So they started talking about the long term benefits of demonetisation. This is how they are changing the goal posts.

That nobody was caught is factually incorrect; in fact many BJP leaders have been caught, not to mention the TMC stalwarts, IAS officers, bank officials, government nominees (can't look up all the names/links, but these have all happened). I was actually thinking the IT department has probably conducted more high profile raids in December alone than compared to the aggregate of the 11 months prior to that.

And please read the transcripts of the PM's speech and interview - the aim of demonetisation was to bring the hidden black money out into the open. I believe it has achieved that objective. The cost to the nation? That only time can tell.

[JLS]

Really funny - not dangerous

Originally Posted by greenhorn

At first I found this argument funny, and after further thoughts a dangerous one.
Are governments so powerless that they need to stoop to the levels of these crooks to fight them?

So, if government adapts to the situation - you call it stooping!
Example of acting like crooks would be getting your money with no intention of giving it back.

Originally Posted by greenhorn

Do we expect government to change policies and rules like a banana republic to tilt at windmills while honest citizens bear the brunt?

Again a funny one - you seem to be miffed by governments decision to have fingers inked while exchanging notes?

Originally Posted by greenhorn

Do we expect the government to take away the very things terrorists seek to take away from us - stability, security & freedom in the name of catching these terrorists?

I am speechless at the lack of sense of appropriation. First time in sometime I had heard somebody comparing government to terrorists. But for everything there is a first time!

Originally Posted by greenhorn

Please think again, this is the folly of all so called nationalist thinkers, forcing people to play by arbitrary rules while allowing a free hand to the government , allowing it to make a mockery of existing rules & institutions in the pursuit of so called (and shifting) goals for the betterment of the nation.

No think again - actually people should expect government to do nothing, be wary of all criticism, seek opinion before making any change in rules, act without any urgency and give free play to the corrupts and hoarders to act.

[diyguy]

Originally Posted by binand

Referendum is a very bad idea, and the option was wisely left out of our constitution. Decisions on "matters that have wide ranging impact" needs to be taken by subject matter and policy experts, after adequate analysis and consultations.

Am sure there are pros and cons to every position and statement. In a country like India steeped in tradition and varying in culture, SMEs and Policy Experts tend to sway to different opinions depending on the political climate and pressure. There has to be a way for the nonsense to be withdrawn if the general population does not agree to a government or judicial decision. For eg, even though the government brought in the demonetization rule, I would have liked the public to be able to overthrow this decision made by a few people who think they can decide for the 1.4B people in this country.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by diyguy

Am sure there are pros and cons to every position and statement. In a country like India steeped in tradition and varying in culture, SMEs and Policy Experts tend to sway to different opinions depending on the political climate and pressure. There has to be a way for the nonsense to be withdrawn if the general population does not agree to a government or judicial decision. For eg, even though the government brought in the demonetization rule, I would have liked the public to be able to overthrow this decision made by a few people who think they can decide for the 1.4B people in this country.

Referendums for policy decisions are acceptable. But it is not acceptable for issues involving fundamental rights and basic principles of a democratic welfare state. Majority cannot alter the fundamental principles of our nation.

So referendums for short term policies - Yes.
Referendums for long term issues affecting the basic fabric of our nation - No.

But once allowed, our politicians will use referendums to give legitimacy to all their polarising policies. So we are better off without referendums.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by diyguy

..... I would have liked the public to be able to overthrow this decision made by a few people who think they can decide for the 1.4B people in this country.

Not necessarily by public referendum, but a recent Supreme Court judgment does change the dynamic on usage of Ordinances by govt. to bypass Parliament.

Prima Facie, it seems to clarify and potentially nullify the historical assumption that Ordinances passed by govt. while Partliament is out-of-session can't be debated/reversed post-facto either by voting in Parliament or by legal means. It further suggests that any ordinance passed in such situations shall be tabled in both houses of Parliament at the earliest opportunity, or face being declared void after a prescribed time period (6 weeks?) of Parliament reassembling.

Can one of our resident legal eagles comment/elaborate on this? I'm not inclined to believe stuff I have no expertise in at face value.

P.S. I've quoted the first legal opinion I could find (it has a disclaimer at the bottom), no partisan intent should be assumed. Anyone able to find the actual judgment can please share a link.

P.P.S. One possible outcome, if pursued, is a potential repeal of the demonetisation ordinance because the ruling party doesn't have a majority in both houses of Parliament.

[greenhorn]

Originally Posted by JLS

Really funny - not dangerous


So, if government adapts to the situation - you call it stooping!
Example of acting like crooks would be getting your money with no intention of giving it back.

Yes

Again a funny one - you seem to be miffed by governments decision to have fingers inked while exchanging notes?

Rather the multiple u turns taken by the govt.

I am speechless at the lack of sense of appropriation. First time in sometime I had heard somebody comparing government to terrorists. But for everything there is a first time!

In the US, there is a lot of outcry against the security regime which was introduced in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. The effectiveness and the ROI of these have been criticized several time, with many saying that the govt completed what the terrorists set out to achieve.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Prima Facie, it seems to clarify and potentially nullify the historical assumption that Ordinances passed by govt. while Partliament is out-of-session can't be debated/reversed post-facto either by voting in Parliament or by legal means. It further suggests that any ordinance passed in such situations shall be tabled in both houses of Parliament at the earliest opportunity, or face being declared void.

An ordinance can be promulagted only when atleast one house of the parliament is not in session. Every ordinance has to be tabled before both houses of parliament when it reassembles. If both houses do not approve the ordinance within 6 weeks, it becomes void. Constitution has not prescribed limits on the number of times an ordinance can be repromulgated. But SC has ruled, wrt Bihar assembly, that multiple repromulgation without attempting to get it passed is unconstitutional.

But till someone challenges the multiple repromulgation in the SC, the status quo continues.\

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

P.P.S. One possible outcome, if pursued, is a potential repeal of the demonetisation ordinance because the ruling party doesn't have a majority in both houses of Parliament.

That will not happen. If one house doesnt approve, the ruling party can always call for a joint session of the parliament, in which ultimately the majority in Lok Sabha will help them sail through.

Since joint session is extremely rare (only happened thrice, i think), they are trying to avoid it for various bills. That is the reason why opposition too is not pushing them too much, because if a joint session is called, the opposition will lose.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

......
That will not happen. If one house doesnt approve, the ruling party can always call for a joint session of the parliament, in which ultimately the majority in Lok Sabha will help them sail through.

Thanks for clarifying. The demonetisation example was hypothetical so let's keep it aside.

In a generic situation for any ordinance passed with Parliament (either or both houses) out-of-session, will a combined majority inclusive of both houses (in a joint session) be sufficient to bypass the 'both houses must approve' requirement, even if it's not available separately in individual houses?

The wording doesn't seem clear on that front, hence the question.

Also, what happens if a joint session doesn't yield a majority vote in favor of an ordinance (legislators don't always vote en masse)? Does it then go to the President, or is it declared void as it stands? If declared void, is a legal challenge possible and/or sufficient to reinstate it in the absence of required votes in Parliament?

[mayankk]

Since we have such varied intelligence here, can someone expound on the legality of the 2016 demonetization in simpler words?

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Thanks for clarifying. The demonetisation example was hypothetical so let's keep it aside.

In a generic situation for any ordinance passed with Parliament (either or both houses) out-of-session, will a combined majority inclusive of both houses (in a joint session) be sufficient to bypass the 'both houses must approve' requirement, even if it's not available separately in individual houses?

The wording doesn't seem clear on that front, hence the question.

Also, what happens if a joint session doesn't yield a majority vote in favor of an ordinance (legislators don't always vote en masse)? Does it then go to the President, or is it declared void as it stands? If declared void, is a legal challenge possible and/or sufficient to reinstate it in the absence of required votes in Parliament?

The usual practise is to withdraw the ordinance, formulate a bill containing the same provisions and try to pass it in both houses. If passed, it becomes law. If it doesnt, wait for 6 months, notify joint session and then pass it.

The ruling alliance will always have a majority in Lok Sabha. Since LS has 545 members and RS has only 250, in a joint session, a majority in LS alone will usually help in passage. Unless the rulers have a very low number in RS.

If an ordinance is declared void by both houses of parliament and by a joint session(practically impossible), then president can repromulgate the ordinance once the houses prorogue. The constitution has not mentioned any limits for such repromulgations. SC too has given verdict only regarding Bihar.

But SC has given a verdict (Cooper case) that the govt cannot prorogue the houses so that they can promulgate ordinances. So at present they can repromulgate it as much as they want to, when the houses are not in session. But cannot deliberately force houses out of session to promulgate ordinances.

Originally Posted by mayankk

Since we have such varied intelligence here, can someone expound on the legality of the 2016 demonetization in simpler words?

It is legal. Government has constitutional discretion to take decisions on monetary policy (through RBI). Only if it infringes on any of the fundamental rights or other constitutional rights, can it be declared illegal by SC.