On Wednesday, the Supreme Court dismissed a slew of Review Petitions, challenging the judgement of the Constitution Bench in the Aadhaar case.
A five-judge bench, comprising of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S Abdul Nazeer, Justice BR Gavai and Justice DY Chandrachud, dismissed a batch of review petitions challenging the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Aadhaar case by 4:1 majority.
While the first four Judges agreed on the fact that no case for Review of Order arises, the latter registered his dissent.
"In our opinion, no case for review of judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 is made out. We hasten to add that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review." The review petitions are accordingly dismissed., observed the majority of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Justice BR Gavai.
Justice Chandrachud however dissented on the ground that it was a constitutional error to hold at this stage that no ground exists to review the judgement and that the review petitions should be kept pending until the larger bench decides the questions referred to it in Rojer Mathew.
"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.", Justice DY Chandrachud stated in his dissenting opinion.
Justice Chandrachud, in his dissent, had earlier in a majority judgements authored by Justice AK Sikri opined that the entire Aadhaar project is unconstitutional. Justice Sikri struck down a few but significant Sections of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 such as Section 33(2), 47 and 57.
Another costitutional bench headed by the then CJI, Ranjan Gogoi, took up challenge to Aadhar Card in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd and examined the validity of provisions of Finance Act 2017 affecting tribunals.
In the said judgement Former CJI doubted the correctness of the interpretation of the majority judgment which held that Aadhaar Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 110(1) of the Constitution and observed that noted that the majority dictum in Aadhaar judgment did not substantially discuss the effect of the word 'only' in Article 110(1) and did not examine the repercussions of a finding when some of the provisions of an enactment passed as a "Money Bill" do not conform to Article 110(1)(a) to (g). The matter was therefore referred to a larger bench.
The order has been passed by Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S Abdul Nazeer, Justice BR Gavai out of five-judge Bench also comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud.
Justice Chandrachud penned a dissenting judgement. Both delivered on 11-01-2021.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
