Dismissing Aadhaar petition
The Supreme Court in a majority view dismissed a bunch of petitions that were seeking a review of its 2018 judgement on Aadhar.
Highlight the various constitutional issues posed by the Aadhar judgement.
Key points raised in the review petitions:
● Two questions came up during the review petitions viz.
⮚ Whether the Speaker’s power to declare a Money Bill was final and cannot be challenged in Court?
⮚ Whether the Aadhar Act was correctly certified as a Money Bill under Article 110(1) of the Constitution?
● The first question was answered by the majority judgement in 2018 that theSpeaker’s decision could be challengedin court only under “certain circumstances”.
● The second question was answered by the majority judgement in 2018 that the Act was correctly certified as a Money Bill under Article 110(1).
● In Rojer Matthew vs. South Indian Bank (2019), the correctness of the interpretation of Aadhar as a Money Bill has been questioned. The matter had therefore been referred to a larger bench.
● Justice Chandrachud in his dissent on the review petitions held that as the larger bench in Rojer Matthew case had not been set upand had not given its opinion, the Aadhar review petitions should not be dismissed without the Court having the benefit of the larger Bench’s consideration on the same issues.
● The majority of judges held the view that a “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 Aadhar judgement has several far-reaching implications for Indian polity and public service delivery.