SC by majority dismisses review plea on validity of Aadhaar

In its 2018 verdict, a five-judge Constitution bench had held that it would not be mandatory to link Aadhaar number to bank accounts

The Supreme Court's five-judge bench, by a majority view, has dismissed a plea for reconsideration of September 29, 2018 judgement which had upheld constitutional validity of Aadhaar.

Of the Constitution bench, Justices A M Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, S Abdul Nazeer and B R Gavai said no case of review of the judgement was made out.

However, Justice D Y Chandrachud, who had dissented in 2018 judgement, disagreed with the majority view, saying these batch of review petitions should be kept pending due to "strong reasons and serious consequences of judicial discipline and ends of justice".

He pointed out that the 2018 decision of Aadhaar Act being a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110 of the Constitution has been doubted by a coordinate bench (of five-judge) in Rojer Mathew, and the issue has been referred to a larger bench.

"With the doubt expressed by another Constitution bench on the correctness of the very decision which is the subject matter of these review petitions, it is a constitutional error to hold at this stage that no ground exists to review the judgment," Justice Chandrachud wrote in his separate judgement delivered on January 11.

The judgement by the four-judge, on other hand, said, "Change in the law or subsequent decision or judgment of a coordinate or larger bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."

Justice Chandrachud, said, "If these review petitions are to be dismissed and the larger bench's reference in Rojer Mathew were to disagree with the analysis of the majority opinion in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar case), it would have serious consequences not just for judicial discipline, but also for the ends of justice."

Notably, Justice Chandrachud had in 2018 disagreed to the majority view and held the decision of the Speaker to certify the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 as a ‘Money Bill’ as unconstitutional.

"The larger bench’s determination would have an undeniable impact on the validity of the reasons expressed in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar), on the constitutional issues pertaining to and arising out of the certification by the Speaker. The failure to re-contextualise the decision of the larger bench with regard to the Aadhaar Act being a ‘Money Bill’ will render it a mere academic exercise," he said.

Justice Chandrachud also said the review petitions by Congress MP Jairam Ramesh, former child rights panel chief Shanta Sinha, S G Vombatkere and others were filed before the judgement in Rojer Mathew case delivered on November 13, 2019.

"These review petitions have continued to remain pending until now, and there is a strong reason for us not to dismiss them pending the decision of the larger bench, especially in light of the adverse consequences," he said.

Justice Chandrachud also relied upon on nine-judge bench order in Sabarimala case which had held on May 11, 2020 that it need not admit the review petitions before referring the questions of law to a larger bench.

In 2018, the top court upheld the validity of Aadhaar programme, saying in balancing the rights to privacy and dignity of individuals, it was serving much larger purpose by reaching hundreds of millions of deserving persons. It, however, had restricted the use of Aadhaar to benefits and subsidies and struck down the orders mandating the citizens to link their unique 12-digit numbers with bank accounts and mobile numbers.