Libertatem Magazine

Aadhar Review Plea Rejected in a 4:1 Verdict by Supreme Court

Contents of this Page

The petition seeking the re-examination of the 2018 Aadhar Verdict which declares the Aadhar act constitutional and valid was dismissed by a 5-judge bench in a 4:1 verdict. In January the petitions were considered by a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, S Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and B R Gavai in the chamber and the order was up on the website on Wednesday.

While Justices Khanwilkar, Bhushan, Gavai, and Nazeer were in favor of dismissal of the petition, Justice Chandrachud disagreed with his fellow judges stating that the review petition must stay till the validity of Aadhar verdict as a money bill is settled by a larger bench. It is interesting to note that in the 2018 verdict it was Justice Chandrachud who gave a dissenting opinion that the Aadhar Act is unconstitutional while the four other judges upheld the law.

The dissenting opinion

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Chandrachud said in his 12-page verdict that the Aadhar verdict with respect to the question of whether the Aadhar act as a money bill was doubted in the majority opinion of the coordinate bench and thus was referred to a larger bench.

The correctness of the Aadhar case has been doubted by a coordinate constitution bench in Roger Mathew case with respect to the certification of the Aadhar Bill as a ‘money bill’ by the speaker of the House of People. With another constitutional bench expressing doubt over the correctness of this decision and it being the grounds of the review petition it will be a constitutional error to hold that no grounds exist for review at this stage said Justice Chandrachud. He further stated that the larger bench’s determination would have a great impact on the validity of reasons bought up in the Puttaswamy verdict with relation to the certification by the speaker of the House of people.

It would have serious consequences for judicial discipline and the ends of justice if these review petitions are dismissed and the larger bench in Roger Mathew disagrees with the analysis of the majority opinion in Puttaswamy. Thus, the batch of review petitions must be kept pending till the case is referred to a larger Bench in Roger Mathew says DY Chandrachud. He lastly concluded by saying that the review petitions must be kept pending till it is referred to the larger bench.

Majority opinion

The Four other judges said in their brief order that no case was made out to review the verdict. They said they have perused the review petition and also looked upon the grounds of support and accordingly held that no case for review of judgment and order of the 2018 case was made out. They further said that a subsequent change in the law by the coordinate or a larger bench cannot be a ground for review and thus the review petitions are dismissed. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgement from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also contribute blog, articles, story tip, judgment and many more and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author