The Congress on Monday dismissed the triumphant reactions in the BJP over the demonetisation verdict, arguing that the Supreme Court had only examined the process of decision-making and not the consequences of the decision.

Congress communications chief Jairam Ramesh said: “The Supreme Court has only pronounced on whether Section 26(2) of RBI Act, 1934, was correctly applied or not before announcing demonetisation on November 8, 2016. Nothing more, nothing less.

One honourable judge in her dissenting opinion has said that Parliament should not have been bypassed.” Ramesh added that the verdict was silent on the impact of demonetisation, which was a “singularly disastrous decision”.

“It damaged the growth momentum, crippled MSMEs, finished off the informal sector and destroyed lakhs and lakhs of livelihood. The verdict has nothing to say on whether the stated objectives of demonetisation were met. None of these goals — reducing currency in circulation, moving to a cashless economy, curbing counterfeit currency, ending terrorism and unearthing black money — was achieved in significant measure. To say that demonetisation has been upheld by the Supreme Court is totally misleading and wrong,” he said.

Responding to a question on the BJP demanding Rahul Gandhi’s apology after the Supreme Court’s endorsement, Ramesh said: “If anybody has to apologise for demonetisation, it is Narendra Modi for taking that Tughlaqi decision. The nation is suffering the consequences of notebandi even now. The economy was derailed and small businesses were destroyed.”

The Congress had described demonetisation as the biggest scam of independent India while former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had said “it was organised loot and legalised plunder”.

In a series of tweets, former finance minister P. Chidambaram said: “Once the Supreme Court has declared the law, we are obliged to accept it.

However, it is necessary to point out that the majority has not upheld the wisdom of the decision; nor has the majority concluded that the stated objectives were achieved.

In fact, the majority has steered clear of the question whether the objectives were achieved at all.” He added:

“The minority judgment brings out the profound distinction between the plenary legislative power of Parliament and the limited power of the executive government. We are happy that the minority judgment has emphasised the important role of Parliament in a democracy. We hope that in future an unbridled executive will not thrust disastrous decisions on Parliament and the people. As a Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court famously said ‘A dissent is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day’.”