SC rejects pleas seeking review of 2018 Aadhaar verdict; Justice DY Chandrachud dissents

A 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court rejected the petitions seeking a review of its 2018 judgment upholding the constitutional validity of the Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme. In the majority judgment, Justices AM Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, S Abdul Nazeer and BR Gavai held that there is no case for review after perusing the grounds put forth by the petitioners. Moreover, they added that a change in the law or subsequent decision by a bench cannot be regarded as a ground for review by itself. 

This is perceived as a reference to the verdict of the Constitution Bench of the SC in Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd. Headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, this bench had doubted the correctness of the 2018 judgment in the Aadhaar case which ruled that the Aadhaar Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 110(1) of the Constitution and referred the matter to a larger bench. Meanwhile, Justice DY Chandrachud has penned a dissenting judgment.

Read: SC Slams 'branding People You Don't Want As Biased', Lobby's Aspersions On Farm Laws Panel

Read: Govt Cautions People Against Sharing Aadhar Numbers, OTPs For Anti-Covid Inoculation

Dissenting verdict

In his verdict, Justice Chandrachud noted that it is a constitutional error to determine at this stage that no ground exists to review the Aadhaar judgment. To buttress his point, he pointed out that that the larger bench was yet to be constituted as directed in Rojer Mathew vs South Indian Bank Ltd. According to him, there would be serious consequences if the larger bench were to disagree with the majority opinion in the Aadhaar verdict. 

In paragraph 14 of the verdict, Justice Chandrachud wrote, "If these review petitions are to be dismissed and the larger bench reference in Rojer Mathew were to disagree with the analysis of the majority opinion in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.), it would have serious consequences – not just for judicial discipline, but also for the ends of justice. As such, the present batch of review petitions should be kept pending until the larger bench decides the questions referred to it in Rojer Mathew. In all humility, I conclude that the constitutional principles of consistency and the rule of law would require that a decision on the Review Petitions should await the reference to the Larger Bench."

Read: Delhi HC: No Doctor Prescription Needed For COVID Test, Aadhaar Card & ICMR Form Mandatory

Background of Aadhaar case

The government tabled The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 as a Money Bill in Lok Sabha on March 3, 2016. This legislation gave statutory backing to Aadhaar, the unique identity number through which the government ensures targeted delivery of subsidy benefits and services. On March 16, 2016, the Lok Sabha rejected the 5 amendments proposed by the Upper House of Parliament via voice vote after which the bill was deemed to be passed. The Rajya Sabha can only make recommendations to Money Bills and must return such legislation to the Lok Sabha within 14 days of the date of their receipt.

On September 26, 2018, a Constitution Bench of the apex court headed by the then CJI Dipak Misra upheld the Aadhaar law with a few riders. For instance, Section 57 (allowing private entities to use Aadhaar for verification purposes) and Section 33(2) (allowing data to be shared with specially authorized officers in the interest of national security) were struck down by the court. In a dissenting judgment, Justice Chandrachud said that the passage of the Aadhaar Bill as a Money Bill was a fraud on the Constitution. Moreover, he held that Section 7 of the law, which made Aadhaar mandatory for state subsidies, is unconstitutional.

Read: 'More Than 40,955 Fraudulent Aadhaar Numbers Cancelled Up To August 31': Sanjay Dhotre