"Economy still not recovered from shock of demonetisation": Congress leader Jairam Ramesh
Ramesh further said with 98.24 pc of Rs 2000 notes being returned to Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which were introduced at the same time of demonisation, has proven that the whole 'experiment' was a futile exercise.
Criticising the demonisation policy in a post on X, Ramesh posted, 'The demonetisation announcement made with much fanfare by the Prime Minister on the night of 8 November 2016 was the first major blow to our economy - and the economy has not fully recovered from this shock till date.'
https://x.com/Jairam_Ramesh/status/1928398911510888941
Talking about the introduction, and the subsequent withdrawal of the Rs 2000 notes from circulation, Ramesh's post added, '2000 rupee notes were introduced at the same time, in November 2016. But just as they were introduced suddenly, the announcement of demonetization of these notes on 30 September 2023 was also made suddenly. So far 98.24% of such notes have been deposited back to RBI. This clearly proves how futile and futile this entire experiment was.'
Calling back the claim that demonisation will 'end fake currency,' Ramesh said that there has been a 37 pc increase in fake 500 rupee notes in 2023, highlighting an article which quoted RBI's annual report 2024-25.
On November 8, 2016, the 500 and 1000 rupee notes were demonetised overnight, and new Rs 2000 notes were issued.
'Government of India vide their Notification no. 2652 dated November 8, 2016 have withdrawn the Legal Tender status of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 denominations of banknotes of the Mahatma Gandhi Series issued by the Reserve Bank of India till November 8, 2016,' the RBI said in a press release in 2016.
The decision was taken in order to tackle fake currency, nullify black money, and curb the funding of terrorism. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
27 minutes ago
- Business Standard
The cost of free: UPI's exponential growth strains limits of subsidies
Industry players add that while other monetisation-friendly avenues are emerging for UPI, those require to be developed further to offset the impact of free transactions Ajinkya Kawale Subrata Panda Mumbai/New Delhi Listen to This Article India's most successful digital payments story — the Unified Payments Interface (UPI) — is free for consumers but far from costless. As Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Governor Sanjay Malhotra recently reminded, someone is footing the bill, and for now, it is the government. That raises a pressing question: how long can subsidies sustain UPI's explosive growth? The government wants transaction volumes to expand tenfold, but industry participants, including fintechs and banks, say the UPI ecosystem may be nearing a tipping point where technology and operational costs are difficult to absorb. Several executives argue that UPI still has the potential
Deccan Herald
27 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
DPDPA gaps delay privacy promise
Eight years after the landmark K S Puttaswamy judgement affirmed privacy as a fundamental right, its promise remains unfulfilled. The judgement, invoking the Preamble, recognised privacy as an enabling right essential for the fulfillment of all other fundamental rights, including equality. Yet, as automation becomes pervasive across sectors like healthcare and social security, India's legal framework proves inadequate in addressing the biases and discrimination that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) 2023 is a step in the right direction, it suffers from significant shortcomings. The Act's Section 7 provides for 'certain legitimate uses', creating loopholes for extensive profiling and automated decisions. This allows personal data collection without explicit consent for various purposes, including state functions and employment, not just when voluntarily provided..A more significant weakness is the Act's failure to define profiling or regulate automated decision-making. In simple terms, automated decision-making means the use of algorithms to make a decision based on certain given facts or a collection of facts. Profiling, on the other hand, means analysing various aspects of an individual to decide about 'automated processing' is defined, it is not used to grant any substantive rights to the affected individuals. This legislative lacuna is glaring, especially given the B N Srikrishna Committee's recommendations for automated safeguards. While Section 8(3) requires data fiduciaries to ensure data accuracy when making decisions that affect the data principal, it doesn't mandate a right to challenge the process itself. This opacity creates an accountability vacuum, making it virtually impossible to challenge unfair or discriminatory consequences of this regulatory vacuum are profound, manifesting in tangible bias and discrimination across vital sectors. In public services, algorithmic systems like Telangana's Samagra Vedika, designed to assess welfare eligibility, have reportedly excluded approximately 15,000 marginalised individuals due to technical glitches or flawed financial sector faces a significant challenge with digital lending algorithms that can inadvertently perpetuate historical biases, leading to unequal access to credit. This was highlighted by a recent incident involving an Indian NBFC, where an Artificial Intelligence(AI) tool miscategorised over 17,000 low-income applicants as high-risk. The system's bias, which favoured applicants with a strong digital footprint and extensive data, was corrected only after crucial human intervention, underscoring the vital role of the 'human-in-the-loop' approach. The incident serves as a powerful reminder that while the RBI's FREE-AI framework is a proactive step, human oversight remains indispensable in AI-driven credit engaged in platform work are also at the mercy of algorithms and automated decision-making. Studies show that unregulated use of AI in the gig economy can be detrimental to platform workers. While states such as Rajasthan and Karnataka have passed bills to regulate platform work, these bills do not address the use of AI by companies to 'manage' their workforce..A case for human cost is compounded by the absence of a 'right to explanation' in the DPDPA. The Act defines 'gain' and 'loss,' but only uses these terms for monetary penalties under Section 33, not to grant relief for the tangible harm caused by automated data processing. Furthermore, since the right not to be solely subjected to automated decision-making has not been incorporated in the DPDP Act, people are left without a remedy in case of discrimination or errors in the automation process. This lack of legal remedy is against the tenet of ubi jus remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy), given that privacy is a fundamental legislative vacuum in India stands in stark contrast to global frameworks. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) and the United Kingdom's GDPR provide crucial safeguards like mandatory Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) and the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions. These safeguards, along with the EU AI Act's classification of high-risk activities like credit assessment, impose strict requirements on providers, including human oversight and data quality checks. These crucial safeguards are missing from the we reflect on the anniversary of the Puttaswamy judgement, it is clear that its promise of digital rights remains unfulfilled when automated systems can discriminate without our knowledge or consent. India possesses a unique opportunity to lead in ethical AI governance by amending the DPDPA. By including a right to explanation, a clear definition of profiling, and specific regulation of automated decisions, we can fulfil the true promise of privacy and equality in the digital age..(Utkarsh is a final-year law student at RMLNLU, Lucknow; Harshita is a student at National Law University, Jodhpur)
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Nuclear laws and the role of Opposition
Political parties in India, especially the Opposition, will soon need to take a view on a critical subject with a bearing on the country's energy security and climate change mitigation. The proposal to amend the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act (CLNDA), 2010, and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 1962 — which in the past witnessed intense debate — sooner or later, is expected to come up in Parliament. With the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance government indicating its intention to introduce it during the monsoon session, Parliament will revisit the issue whenever the Bills are introduced. The plan is to amend the CLNDA and the AEA to address the vexatious issue of liability on the suppliers of equipment and permit private parties in the field of nuclear energy, respectively. The India-U.S. Civil Nuclear Agreement and the enactment of the CLNDA led to a series of standoffs between the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government and Opposition parties — the BJP and the Left parties led by CPI(M). Historical context Fifteen years ago, the government introduced a Bill to write laws for compensation to the people for nuclear accidents, as India was not a party to any of the existing conventions. Parliament was engaged in a lengthy debate, as the government preferred the passage of liability along the lines of international covenants. Lack of requisite strength in the Rajya Sabha, dreadful memories of the suffering of people from the 1984 Bhopal gas leak, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the damage to the nuclear reactor at Fukushima, Japan, following an earthquake, provided the backdrop. Sensing an opportunity, the combined opposition pressed to raise the compensation bar on suppliers of nuclear reactor equipment and beyond the immediate compensation liability on the operator. The insertion of the clause rendered the Act dead on arrival. Western country equipment suppliers shied away. An attempt to tweak it a decade ago made little difference, and international response remains lukewarm. In 2007, during the debate around the nuclear deal, questions were raised about whether it was considering amending the AEA, allowing private sector participation. The government then noted that the 1997 report of the Dr. Raja Ramanna Committee had been examined, and a review of the Act had been under consideration since then. Now both issues are scheduled to return on Parliament's agenda. Raising concerns In February this year, the Congress raised objections to the announcement to amend the Acts. It said the move dilutes accountability of suppliers, raises domestic risk, and protects equipment suppliers, reflecting the Convention on Supplementary Compensation, compromising the citizens' safety, and leaning in favour of international corporations. The party also alleged that the move was intended to appease foreign interests, particularly France and the U.S., ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit. Back in 2010, then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated that the process for compensation for nuclear accidents began in 1999, and such a law was needed. The government then dismissed claims that the proposed law was timed with a visit by President Barack Obama. Now, the central issue is whether the Congress will take a studied stance on the proposed legislation. There is a serious debate taking place outside on the move to build small modular reactors, with many countries vying to have a piece of the pie. The contribution of energy from nuclear power is estimated to be slightly over 3% of the total power generation. At the end of last year, the installed capacity of 24 nuclear power plants stood at 8.8 GW, the government informed Parliament. This was when the country set a target of 10 GW by the year 2000. The government now aims for 22.48 GW by 2031-32 and an ambitious 100 GW by 2047. In the past, the Opposition took an about-turn on three key issues. At the turn of the century, opposition led to a delay in enacting an amendment to the Patents Act, 1970. Eventually, after a change of sides, the Opposition's support resulted in the mandatory amendment. A decade ago, on two other contentious issues, the Opposition stalled laws, one on insurance law to raise the foreign direct investment ceiling, and the ratification of the exchange of enclaves with Bangladesh under the Land Border Agreement. Finally, these proposed laws were enacted with the then-Opposition offering support, with minor or no concessions. Leaders across the aisle walked together to arrive at an agreed position as the governments of the day worked, in their assessment, to further the national interest. Need for a debate Today, the NDA government does not have to look across the aisle for support. The current issues have long-term implications, and there is a need for a well-rounded discussion that takes into account all factors around nuclear energy, the shift towards small modular reactors, the larger question of disposal of nuclear waste, and allied subjects. The Opposition should play a leading role in initiating this discussion and decide accordingly. Otherwise, during a debate on a contentious issue two decades ago, a member on the Treasury Benches remarked to another member of the Opposition that a change of sides should not result in a change of stand. K. V. Prasad is a senior Delhi-based journalist and authored a book Indian Parliament Shaping Foreign Policy
