Constitution of India – Art. 110 – Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 – A batch of petitions sought review of the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J) v. Union of India [2018] 8 SCR 1: (2019) 1 SCC 1, it assails the reasoning in the opinion of the majority on whether the Aadhaar Act was ‘Money Bill’ u/Art.110 of the Constitution – Earlier, the majority in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J) v. Union of India held that the Aadhaar Act was correctly certified as a ‘Money Bill’ u/Art.110 (1) – Held: (Per Majority) no case for review of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J) v. Union of India [2018] 8 SCR 1: (2019) 1 SCC 1, judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 is made out – The change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review – (Per Minority: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud) If these review petitions are to be dismissed and the larger Bench reference in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. [2019] 16 SCR 1: (2020) 6 SCC 1 were to disagree with the analysis of the majority opinion in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar5J.), 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. Constitution of India – Art. 110 – Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 – Held: Per Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud: The correctness of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) on issues pertaining to, and arising from, the certification of a Bill as a ‘Money Bill’ by the Speaker of the House of People was doubted by a co-ordinate Constitution Bench in Rojer Mathew – 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. Dismissing the Review Petitions, the Court
HELD : [PER A.M. KHANWILKAR, ASHOK BHUSHAN,
S. ABDUL NAZEER AND B.R. GAVAI, JJ.]
1. In opinion of this Court, no case for review of judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 is made out. This Court hastens to add that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. [Para 4][684-D-E]
PER DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. (Dissenting)
2. The analysis of the majority opinion in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) in relation to the second question, i.e., whether the Aadhaar Act was a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110 has been doubted by a coordinate bench in Rojer Mathew, when the first question was referred to a larger bench. The larger bench has not been constituted, and is yet to make a determination. Dismissing the present batch of review petitions at this stage – a course of action adopted by the majority – would place a seal of finality on the issues in the present case, without the Court having the benefit of the larger bench’s consideration of the very issues which arise before us. The correctness of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar5J.) 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 co-ordinate Constitution Bench in Rojer Mathew. 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. The larger bench’s determination would have an undeniable impact on the validity of the reasons expressed in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.), on the constitutional issues pertaining to and arising out of the certification by the Speaker of the House of People. The failure to recontextualize the decision of the larger bench with regard to the Aadhaar Act being a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110(1) will render it a mere academic exercise. [Para 11][691-D-H; 692-A]
3. It is important to draw a distinction with a situation where a judgment attains finality and the view propounded by it is disapproved by a larger bench subsequently. In the present case, the above-mentioned review petitions had all been filed before the judgment in Rojer Mathew was delivered on 13 November 2019. The review petitions were pending on the date when a reference was made to a larger bench in Rojer Mathew. These review petitions were previously listed before a five-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra on 25 August 2020, and were not disposed of. Hence, these review petitions have continued to remain pending until now, and there is a strong reason for this Court not to dismiss them pending the decision of the larger bench. [Para 12][692-B-C]
4. 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 (Aadhaar-5J.), 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. [Para 14][693-A-B]
Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1: [2018] 8 SCR 1; Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd (2020) 6 SCC 1: [2019] 16 SCR 1 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.