Geeta, a domestic helper in her late 40s, works at a house in West Delhi’s Janakpuri area. When the news about Rs 500 and 1,000 ceasing to be legal tender reached her, she was distraught.
Approaching her employer, Geeta begged that her old notes be exchanged. On asking why she couldn’t go and deposit her own money, she replied that despite having a bank account, she doesn’t trust it.
“Also, if I go to the bank, who will do my work?”
The government’s demonetisation move has rendered many helpless, many cashless. Geeta, at least, has a bank account. What happens to those without one?
Also Read: Currency Ban Is Tearing Rural Banks Apart
Has the Move Disenfranchised the Poor?
There’s nothing you can do if you don’t have a bank account. According to the new limit, you can’t exchange more than Rs 2,000, which is a serious problem. This effectively means destroying your assets.Alok Prasanna Kumar, Visiting Fellow, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
Kumar explains that the money one holds is what the Reserve Bank of India owes the person holding it. By banning the notes, the government has basically cancelled that debt.
He questions the legality of the move through Article 300A of the constitution, which states that “No person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law.” In that manner, “limiting exchange of old notes effectively means that you have destroyed the people’s property rights,” he says.
Demonetisation, then, implies extinguishing public debt in the hands of someone who has a demonetised note, which cannot be done without the authority of law.
India still hosts a large amount of people, especially in its hinterlands, who do not have a bank account. While non-account holders can exchange upto Rs 2,000 over cash counters in banks, what happens if somebody has more money than that to exchange?
‘They Will Now Resort to the Black Market’
In major cities like Delhi and Bombay, there are banks that open an account for a person on the spot. “If the person has a valid ID proof, we open the account for them. It might take more time than usual, but it gets done,” a banker in a Delhi branch of the State Bank of India told The Quint.
Dr Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning at Jawaharlal Nehru University thinks this case is an exception.
“It’s really difficult for people in villages and rural areas to even find a bank and open an account there. I don’t know how many banks will actually open them. What about migrants who come to a city but there IDs are somewhere else? Has any provision been made for them,” she asks.
Calling the policy an attack on the poor, Ghosh goes on to make another argument:
Concurring with Ghosh’s point, economist Dipankar Dasgupta believes that somebody without an account will either look to a friend or relative who can deposit the money in their own account, or indulge in some sort of a “black transaction.”
Daily wage workers, sabziwaallahs, even domestic help, prefer keeping some amount of their income in their houses for ready disposal. Has the government, with one move, disenfranchised their right to hold their wealth?
The Error in Judgment
“Legally, the move does not override any constitutional right,” says senior Supreme Court lawyer Sanjay Hegde.
What Hegde is saying is that a person without a bank account would not have faced any shortfall had the banks simply exchanged the entire amount of their now-defunct currency with the new notes.
“The government has basically left the poor without any option. Their best option is for them to find a dalaal who will exchange their notes in black,” Dr Ghosh says.
The chaos that has ensued ever since the announcement is ample proof that implementation has been poor; a point that Hegde agrees with.
The problem is at the administrative level. Why didn’t the government open bank facilitation centres outside banks? There could have been a separate counter for opening new accounts. All this hasn’t been done.Sanjay Hegde, Senior Supreme Court Lawyer
While the Supreme Court recently stayed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the policy, there has been talk of other PILs being filed to withdraw the currency ban.
“Now, the 1978 demonetisation was upheld by the Supreme Court. It is highly unlikely that a court will ultimately invalidate the government’s action,” Hegde asserts.
Why didn’t the policy, which is intended to be a “surgical strike” on black money, take into account all those people who chose not to enter the banking system?
What hope, then, is left for the millions of people in the country who have been left without accounts, cash or any peace of mind?
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)