Technically responding to a quasi legal and pseudo logical

article/rant
The spurt in the number of thought luminaries, vanguards of legal logic cum rant, etc.
etc. began in (quote me if I am wrong) February 2002. However, there has been a
revolution in evolution of this breed of hyper elites who have based their life on
certain kind of books and dinner discussions.
Hereby is an attempt, which is formulated out of sheer contempt
#Psychoanalysis
Article: Why demonetization notification is illegal and violates the Constitution
By Namita Wahi
Dec 11, 2016, 01.14 AM IST
Economic Times
Source:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/whydemonetisation-notification-is-illegal-and-violates-theconstitution/articleshow/55916594.cms
Just to begin with, the article is 930 words long. Out of this, 208 words about how
bat shit demonetization is. That is roughly 22.36% of previous liberal chance wasted
on clichs and obvious; however, it is a humble waste (and perhaps relatively
efficient) comparing it to standards set so far.
Moving on quickly to avoid the demonstration effect, the starting statement is
digestible as it mentions (yet, rather to the Supreme Courts surprise) that SC will not
entertain a matter on the grounds of efficiency. However, the very next statement is a
hollow sophisticated legal thundering which argues that - the notification goes
beyond the scope of what is permitted under the RBI Act, 1934. It literally means
nothing. Absolutely nothing. RBI Act states in its preamble 1 the RBI was constituted
to regulate the issue of bank notes.2 The is the equivalent of saying, Sunny Leone
cant breastfeed her baby cause we have essentialised her as a porn actress.
1 PREAMBLE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 19341

An Act to constitute a Reserve Bank of India.

Whereas it is expedient to constitute a Reserve Bank for India to regulate the
issue of Bank notes and the keeping of reserves with a view to securing monetary
stability in 2[India] and generally to operate the currency any credit system of the
country to its advantage;
And whereas in the present disorganisation of the monetary systems of the world
it is not possible to determine what will be suitable as a permanent basis for the
Indian monetary system;
But whereas it is expedient to make temporary provision on the basis of the
existing monetary system, and to leave the question of the monetary standard
best suited to India to be considered when the international monetary position has
become sufficiently clear and stable to make it possible to frame permanent
measures; It is hereby enacted as follows:

2 More masala in the preamble as stated above.

The second cause of worry is about the mental health of the author whose Harbard
(sic) SJD (doctoral) has been overwhelmed by Modi hatred as she gave reference to
Banking Regulation Act of 1935, a thing that like subaltern reality, doesnt exist. Its
the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to be precise under which comes Section 35A. 3 On
the technical bit, 35A4 is referenced in the comments section of the Act which states
Under Sec. 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, the Reserve Bank has power to
issue directions when it is satisfied that in the public interest.
The rest of the neural riot is on the basis of Article 19 (1)(d) & 19(1)(g). However,
these rights are restricted by 19(5)5 and 19(6)6 (as provided below) and allow
restrictions based upon interest of public policy, etc. All the more, restriction is only
consequential and not direct in many manner and can be argued both ways; and in
such instance the opinion of the executive/government has to be given predominance
untill a prima facie case can be made against the same which is not the case in any
manner whatsoever.
The growling over Article 300A is high flying eagle shit in crystalline form. You can
make a joint out of it and youre not gonna get any high. A fart can elevate you more
if done in the right circumstances. Article 300A 7 prevents the government from
depriving anyone from property. The flaws in the claim are significant:
3 You know you befuddle so many things when something else youre thinking
and something else that you are writing Neem ka patta kadwa hai, Narendra
Modi..

4 35-A. Power of the Reserve Bank to give directions.(1) Where the Reserve
Bank
is
satisfied
that
(a) in the 3[public interest]; or
4[(aa) in the interest of banking policy; or]
(a) to prevent the affairs of any banking company being conducted in a manner
detrimental to the interests of the depositors or in a manner prejudicial to the
interests of the banking company; or
(c) to secure the proper management of any banking company generally; it is
necessary to issue directions to banking companies generally or to any banking
company in particular, it may, from time to time, issue such directions as it deems
fit, and the banking companies or the banking company, as the case may be, shall
be bound to comply with such directions.
(2) The Reserve Bank may, on representation made to it or on its own motion,
modify or cancel any directions issued under sub-section (1) and in so modifying
or cancelling any direction may impose such conditions as it thinks fit, subject to
which the modification or cancellation shall have effect.]

5
19(5) Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the
operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from
making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the
rights conferred by the said sub clauses either in the interests of the general
public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe

6
19(6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law
imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause.

1. Money is not property per se. it is only a representation of the value that is
owed by the RBI to the bearer. What the RBI has done in the present case is
that it has made change in the format of the symbol/representation of value.
The promise of the RBI remains the same.
2. Propert should righly belong. Illegal property cannot be saved by under the
premise of 300A, a simple logic the author never contemplated.
3. Depriviation is permanent. In the present case, there is hardship to use the
property. He government has not snatched any property/value/money from
anyone. It has just asked for a change in the format of the same. This is a path
of hardship which the government can push the public in through the rightful
powers that is has begotten through the constitution. #CrystalShit.
Limiting the argument to the last libtard battle front, lets have a look at Jayantilal vs.
RBI8, a 5 Judge Decision, the author makes the most ghastly mistake that most
Harbardists (sic) will do in the hadbad9 of hullabalooing behind Narendra Modi, i.e.
to not have read the case. The facts of the case are the following:
Accordingly to petitioner, immediatelyafter the promulgation of the High
Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) Ordinance, 1978, on
January 16, 1978 instructions were given to the office bearers of the Society
both at Bombay and Surat not accept any deposit or to allow anyone to deposit
any
high denomination bank notes in the collection boxes after midnight of
January 16, 1978.
For that purpose the boxes at Surat and Bombay
were taken possession of by the respective offices bearers and steps
were taken by the Society to open the boxes. The collection boxes at Bombay,
which were opened in the afternoon of January 17, 1978, were found to
contain Rs. 22, 11, 000/- in high denomination bank notes. The amount so
received
was properly minuted in the minute book and entered in the
cash book. Thereafter the
Society obtained the requisite statutory
declaration form to be submitted for exchange of those notes and along
with the declaration deliveredthe notes to the State Bank of India,
Bombay on January 19, 1978.10
Therefore, the logic doesnt withstand the simple scruitiny of reading a case law and
comprehension. Dukki and kunji chaap11 scholars with embelishments of Harbard
should take some IRAC12 lessons indeed.
7
300. A Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law No person
shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law PART XIII TRADE,
COMMERCE AND INTERCOURSE WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF INDIA

JT 1996 (7), 6811996 SCALE (5)741

9
Quoting from the most pejorative parliamentarian ever Hukumdev Narayan
Yadav

10
Supra N. 8

11
These are the guide-books as called in law schools. The scholars created out of
these sources should be now onwards referred with the above said atishyoktis.

The rest of the articles is a translation of the first half of the article from English to
English.
Having said the above elongated text-ology, let me also state that there are many
legitimate arguments that go against the move of the Government and in particular,
the Modi government. However, the author has written legally disabled and literally
boring piece on which wasting precious minutes of my life looked in-escapable,
nevertheless improvident. Yet had to do it because there are more errors of intentions
than the fact that the quantum of large notes in 1978 was 0.6 and not 1%.
Suprabhaat

12
It is one of the most kindergarten means of comprehending a case law.