|  |  | 

India Top Headlines

Supreme Court Rejects Aadhaar’s Revision Statement In 4: 1 Verdict | India News

img-responsive

NEW DELHI: A court of five Supreme Court justices by a 4: 1 majority dismissed a petition seeking reexamination of its 2018 verdict in which the Aadhaar Act was declared valid and constitutional. The petitions for review were considered by a court of Justices AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, S Abdul Nazeer and BR Gavai on camera on January 11 and the order was uploaded to SC’s website on Wednesday.
While Judges Khanwilkar, Bhushan, Nazeer and Gavai were in favor of dismissing the petition for review, Judge Chandrachud disagreed with his brother judges and said that the petition for review should remain pending until the question of validity. of the certification of the Aadhaar Bill as Money Bill. it had been resolved by a larger constitutional bank. Interestingly, it was Judge Chandrachud who issued a dissenting verdict in 2018 declaring the Aadhaar Law unconstitutional when the other four judges on the Constitutional court had ratified the law.
Judge Chandrachud, in his 12-page verdict, noted that the majority opinion in the Aadhaar case regarding the question of whether the Aadhaar Act was a money bill has been called into question by a coordinated court and the matter has been had referred to a larger court. .
“The veracity of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar case) on issues related to the certification of a bill as a ‘money bill’ by the Speaker of the House of Representatives has been questioned by a constitutional court coordinated in the case Rojer Mathew. With the doubt expressed by another Constitutional Court about the veracity of the decision itself, which is the subject of these petitions for review, it is a constitutional error to maintain at this stage that there is no basis to review the sentence. The determination of the larger court would have an undeniable impact on the validity of the reasons expressed in Puttaswamy on the related constitutional issues and arising from the certification of the Speaker of the House of the People, ”said Judge Chandrachud.
“If these requests for review were dismissed and the largest benchmark bank in Rojer Mathew disagreed with the analysis of majority opinion in Puttaswamy, it would have serious consequences, not only for judicial discipline, but also for the purposes of justice. . As such, the present batch of petitions for review should remain pending until the larger court decides the issues before it in Rojer Mathew. In all humility, I conclude that constitutional principles of consistency and rule of law would require that a decision on petitions for review must await referral to the larger court, ”he said.
However, the majority of the four judges said that no case was made to review the verdict. “We have examined the requests for review, as well as the reasons behind them. In our opinion, there is no record of review of judgment and order dated September 26, 2018. We hasten to add that the change in the law or the subsequent decision / judgment of a coordinated or larger bank alone cannot be considered as a reason for review. Consequently, the requests for review are rejected, ”they said in their brief order.

Times of India

supreme-court-rejects-aadhaars-revision-statement-in-4-1-verdict-india-news

ABOUT THE AUTHOR