The Supreme Court rejected the re-examination plea of the 2018 verdict in which Aadhaar act was declared valid and constitutional by a 4:1 majority of its five judge bench.
Justices AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, S Abdu 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 dismissing the review petition, DY Chandrachud believed otherwise. Justice Chandrachud said the review petition should be kept pending until the validity of the certification of the Aadhaar Bill as Money Bill had been settled by the larger bench.
In a verdict of 12 pages, Chandrachud pointed out that majority opinion in the case considering the question whether it was a money bill has been doubted by a coordinate bench and the matter had been referred to a larger bench.
Justice Chandrachud said, "The correctness of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar case) on issues pertaining to, and arising from, the certification of a Bill as a ‘money bill’ by the Speaker of the House of People has been doubted by a coordinate Constitution bench in the Rojer Mathew case."
Justice Chandrachud added, "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 judgement. The larger bench’s determination would have an undeniable impact on the validity of the reasons expressed in Puttaswamy on the constitutional issues pertaining to and arising out of the certification by the Speaker of the House of People."
“If these review petitions are to be dismissed and the larger bench reference in Rojer Mathew were to disagree with the analysis of the majority opinion in Puttaswamy, it would have serious consequences – not just for judicial discipline, but also for the ends of justice. As such, the present batch of review petitions should be kept pending until the larger bench decides the questions referred to it in Rojer Mathew. In all humility, I conclude 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,” Justice Chandrachud added.
The other four judges however said no case was made out
to review the 2018 verdict. "We hasten to add that change in the law or
subsequent decision/judgement of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot
be regarded as a ground for review. The review petitions are accordingly
dismissed,” the order read.