Pleas Seeking the Review of the Aadhaar Scheme Verdict To Be Heard by the Supreme Court Today

Must Read

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was...

Follow us

The Supreme Court is to deliver its verdict on pleas seeking to review its own verdict given on September 26, 2018, upholding the Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid but cancelling some provisions like linking it to bank accounts, mobile phones, and school admissions.

A batch of review pleas challenging the 2018 verdict, will be heard by a 5-judge bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud, A M Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, BR Gavai, and SA Nazeer.

Justices Khanwilkar, Chandrachud, and Ashok Bhushan were part of the original bench that delivered the verdict on the Aadhaar scheme on 26th September 2018.

A Five Judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Deepak Misra ruled that while Aadhar will remain important to file income tax returns and allotment of the PAN (Permanent Account Number), it won’t be linked to mobile phones, bank accounts, etc. anymore.

Though the 4:1 judgment struck down some important provisions the court held that it will continue to be needed for all welfare schemes and government subsidies.

After ruling that Aadhar cannot be used in linking bank accounts or availing mobile services, by CBSE, JEE, NEET for admission in schools and colleges the top court observed that Aadhar had become a household name.

The portion that had been struck down as unconstitutional by the court was Section 57 of Aadhar (Targeted delivery of financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act which permitted private entities like the private telecom companies to avail Aadhar biometric data.

Justice D Y Chandrachud who was a part of the bench gave a dissenting judgment that the Aadhar should not have been passed as a money bill as it is like a fraud to the constitution and can be struck down any time.

But, the four judges who made the majority including the CJI passed a verdict in favour of the passage of the Aadhar Bill as a Money Bill in Lok Sabha. The majority also held that the architecture of the Aadhar scheme and the provisions was not to create a surveillance state.

This was ensured by the manner by which the Aadhaar project operates. The judges found that it is difficult to create a profile of a person just on the basis of biometric data. The court held that as far as authentication is concerned there are enough safeguards.


Libertatem.in 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.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -