By a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the Constitutional Bench decision in AAdhar case( Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) vs Union of India).
Out of all the Bench judges, Hon’ble Justice DY Chandrachud was the only one who expressed his dissent.
The Majority Bench observed that change in law or a larger Bench’s subsequent judgment could not be considered a ground for review.
On the other hand, Hon’ble Justice Chandrachud opined that the petitions should be kept pending until a larger Bench answers the questions/issues raised in Rojer Mathew.
Developments in the case( Aadhar Judgement)
Hon’ble Justice AK Sikri authored the majority judgement in the case, wherein the Court read down some provisions of Aadhar Act, struck down some sections( 33(2), 47 and 57) and upheld other sections.
However, justice Chadrachud stated that the entire Aadhar project was unconstitutional.
Another Constitution Bench headed by former CJI Ranjan Gogoi examined the validity of some provisions of the Finance Act 2017, which affected tribunals. The Bench questioned the correctness of the Bench majority view, according to which Aadhar Bill was a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 110(1) of Constitution.
In that case (Rojer Mathew vs South India bank), the Bench also observed that the Bench did not discuss the effect of the word only in Article 110(1) and also did not dwell upon the fact that some provisions of the Act did not conform to Article 110(1) to (g).
Therefore, the Bench referred the case to a larger Bench.
Title: Beghar Foundation vs Justice KS Puttaswamy(Retd.)
Case No.:Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 45777 of 2018
Date of Order: 11.01.2021