Aadhaar Act Order Of 2018: SC Decides Not To Review It In A 4-1 Verdict
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-01-22 15:11:32
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
A five-judge Supreme Court bench has dismissed the petition that sought a review of the order of the apex court that had declared the Aadhaar Act valid and constitutional in September 2018. The bench comprised of Justices A M Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, S Abdul Nazeer, B R Gavai and D Y Chandrachud. While the first four judges voted to dismiss the petition, Justice Chandrachud wrote a dissenting judgment to allow the same.
The majority of the judges on the bench were of the view that the petitioner had not made out a case for a review. They also said that "change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger bench by itself cannot be a ground for review".
Justice Chandrachud, on the other hand, was of the view that the review petition should be kept pending till the larger bench, which was considering whether it was correct to view the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill, pronounced its decision. He argued that a coordinate bench had doubted the certification of the then Aadhaar Bill as a "money bill" by the House of People and the issue had been referred to a larger constitutional bench whose decision on the matter would have serious consequences "not just for judicial discipline, but also for the ends of justice". He added 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".
One feels that while Justice Chandrachud has given valid arguments for keeping the petition pending, the other judges are also correct that the mere fact that a coordinate bench has expressed doubts or referred the matter to a larger bench cannot be the ground for review. In any case, if the larger constitutional bench decides that the Lok Sabha erred in introducing the then Aadhaar Bill as a "money bill" the Aadhaar Act itself would become null and void. In that case, the review petition would become infructuous. On the other hand, if the larger bench does not find anything wrong in the way the then Aadhaar Bill was introduced and passed in parliament, the Aadhaar Act would stand. But since, in the opinion of the majority of the judges, the petitioner had not provided valid grounds in support of the review, there is no point in keeping it pending till the larger constitutional bench delivers it verdict.
