The Supreme Court rejected the re-examination plea of the2018 verdict in which Aadhaar act was declared valid and constitutional by a 4:1majority of its five judge bench.
Justices AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, SAbdu Nazeer and BR Gavai considered the review petition on January 11. However,the order was uploaded on the website of Supreme Court on Wednesday.
While all the four judges were in agreement of dismissingthe review petition, DY Chandrachud believed otherwise. Justice Chandrachudsaid the review petition should be kept pending until the validity of thecertification of the Aadhaar Bill as Money Bill had been settled by the largerbench.
In a verdict of 12 pages, Chandrachud pointed out thatmajority opinion in the case considering the question whether it was a moneybill has been doubted by a coordinate bench and the matter had been referred toa larger bench.
Justice Chandrachud said, "The correctness ofPuttaswamy (Aadhaar case) on issues pertaining to, and arising from, thecertification of a Bill as a ‘money bill’ by the Speaker of the House of Peoplehas been doubted by a coordinate Constitution bench in the Rojer Mathew case."
Justice Chandrachud added, "With the doubt expressedby another Constitution Bench on the correctness of the very decision, which isthe subject matter of these review petitions, it is a constitutional error tohold at this stage that no ground exists to review the judgement. The larger bench’sdetermination would have an undeniable impact on the validity of the reasonsexpressed in Puttaswamy on the constitutional issues pertaining to and arisingout of the certification by the Speaker of the House of People."
“If these review petitions are to be dismissed and thelarger bench reference in Rojer Mathew were to disagree with the analysis ofthe majority opinion in Puttaswamy, it would have serious consequences – notjust for judicial discipline, but also for the ends of justice. As such, thepresent batch of review petitions should be kept pending until the larger benchdecides the questions referred to it in Rojer Mathew. In all humility, Iconclude that the constitutional principles of consistency and the rule of lawwould require that a decision on the review petitions should await thereference to the larger bench,” Justice Chandrachud added.
The other four judges however said no case was made outto review the 2018 verdict. "We hasten to add that change in the law orsubsequent decision/judgement of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannotbe regarded as a ground for review. The review petitions are accordinglydismissed,” the order read.