Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteAt a law conference in Hyderabad on 30 March 2024, Supreme Court Justice B.V. Nagarathna said she thought demonetisation had been “a way of converting black money into white money.” She was commenting on what happened after withdrawn notes returned to banks and on the hardship the 2016 policy caused ordinary people—not announcing a new court ruling or finding that every returned note was illicit.
What Justice Nagarathna said
Nagarathna made the remark at a NALSAR University of Law conference, in a retrospective discussion of the 2016 demonetisation exercise. Contemporary news reports quote her as saying: “I thought it was a way of converting black money into white money.” The words are reported speech; an official transcript or complete primary recording has not been established.
Her point concerned the gap between the policy’s stated aim of tackling black money and the fact that nearly all withdrawn notes returned to the banking system. She also noted that what followed in income-tax proceedings was not known to her. As The Telegraph reported her saying: “But what has happened with regard to the income-tax proceedings and all, we don’t know.”
She linked her dissent to the burden on ordinary people, including workers who needed to exchange cash to buy daily essentials. Her comment about the human consequences was reported as: “Therefore, this common man’s predicament stirred me; therefore I had to dissent… about which I don’t like to speak about.” The exact wording here, as with the other quotations, is reproduced from news coverage rather than verified against an official transcript.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
#1 Best Overall
Why the return of notes does not settle the black-money question
On 8 November 2016, India announced that the then-existing Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes would cease to be legal tender, subject to arrangements specified by the government. The policy was presented in part as a way to address black money. Justice Nagarathna cited the large share of currency represented by those denominations and the high proportion of withdrawn notes that later returned to the banking system.
| Figure | What it describes | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| 86% | The share of currency represented by Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 denominations, as cited by Nagarathna in remarks reported in 2024. | It is not the share of all wealth or of black money. |
| 98% | A rounded note-return figure used by Nagarathna in remarks reported in 2024. | It does not measure how much illicit wealth was identified or recovered. |
| 98.96% | The share of demonetised notes reported as returned, according to the Reserve Bank of India’s 2017 account, as cited by Scroll. | It does not establish how much tax was later assessed or collected. |
The 98% figure in Nagarathna’s reported remarks is a rounded version of the more precise 98.96% figure attributed to the RBI; they are not competing estimates. More importantly, a note-return rate is not the same thing as a measure of black money. Notes returning to banks does not, by itself, show whether deposits were later examined, assessed for tax, or found to represent illicit income. The statistic alone cannot answer those follow-on questions.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the Supreme Court decided—and what Nagarathna dissented from
The Supreme Court decided Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India on 2 January 2023. A five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the demonetisation exercise by a 4:1 majority. Nagarathna wrote the dissent; the majority decision is the Court’s holding.
Her dissent’s legal objection concerned the route used to make the 2016 notification and the statutory limits she considered applicable. The majority rejected her position. That legal disagreement is separate from her later comments about the policy’s economic and human consequences.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
In her dissent, Nagarathna described the exercise as well-intentioned while concluding that the legal process used was unlawful in her view. Her 2024 criticism should not be recast as a finding in the judgment that the government acted with improper motives. Nor should her dissent be described as the Court having ruled demonetisation illegal.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- Book/CD Pack
- Pages: 96
- Instrumentation: Bodhran Drum
How to read the remark
- It was a retrospective comment. Nagarathna spoke at a law conference on 30 March 2024, not while issuing a new judgment.
- It raised a question about outcomes. The large share of notes returned prompted her to question whether demonetisation had eradicated black money and what happened afterward through income-tax proceedings.
- It was not a finding about every note. The return figures do not identify the legal status of the money or show how much tax authorities ultimately assessed or collected.
- It does not alter the court result. The Supreme Court’s 2023 majority upheld the exercise, while Nagarathna’s dissent set out a different view of its legal process.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
