Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Review petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the 2018 Aadhaar judgment (Puttaswamy v Union of India). The SC bench comprising of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, and D.Y. Chandrachud heard a total of 7 review petitions. All the review petitions were dismissed by a 4:1 majority of the bench with Justice D.Y. Chandrachud expressing his dissent.
The majority opinion stated that a “subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger bench” or a “change in the law” cannot be regarded as grounds for review. It was held that none of the petitions made out a valid case for review, and hence, the review petitions were dismissed.
However, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, presenting his dissenting opinion, stated that the court was presented with 2 main issues which questioned one, the possibility of judicial review of a decision taken by the Speaker of the House of People with regard to Article 110(3) of the Indian Constitution; two, subject to the possibility of judicial review, if the decision is taken regarding the consideration of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 as Money Bill under Article 110(3) correctly certified.
Addressing the questions, the majority held that subjecting a decision taken under Article 110(3) to judicial review is permissible only in specific circumstances according to laws laid down by the court. However, Justice Bhushan, presenting a dissenting opinion, stated that a judicial review could only be undertaken when the decision amounts to a breach of constitutional provisions. While the majority agreed that the Aadhaar Act, containing within it provisions similar to a Money Bill, was appropriately certified. However, presenting a dissenting opinion, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud stated that the decision of certifying the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill was unconstitutional.
He opined that in order to effectively analyze the issues presented, a larger bench must be constituted. He stated that dismissing the pleas and determining that no grounds for review of the judgment exist at such an early stage without any consideration of constituting a larger bench would amount to a constitutional error.
86540
103860
630
114
59824