The Supreme Court (SC) has recently dismissed petitions that sought a review of its 2018 judgment affirming the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act (2016). This article delves into the background, the issues involved, and the final ruling of the court.
Background of the Aadhaar Act case
In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the biometric identity system in India and also endorsed the compulsory Aadhaar enrollment for recipients of government welfare benefits. The court, in its verdict, had also approved the passage of Aadhaar law by the Parliament as a money bill, which did not require an approval of the Rajya Sabha. This led to the filing of review petitions against the judgement.
Issue at hand
The main issue was whether the decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker to certify a bill as a money bill is final and binding, or can it be subject to judicial review? Additionally, if the decision is subject to judicial review, was the Aadhaar Act, correctly certified as a money bill?
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The majority of the bench (4 out of 5) held that there was “no case for review” of the 2018 judgment and hence, dismissed the petitions. They suggested that the 2019 judgment in Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd was not sufficient to press for a reconsideration of the 2018 Aadhaar judgment. The judgement said that the speaker’s decision was not beyond judicial review even though the scope was quite limited.
Dissenting Judgment
However, one judge dissented from the majority view stating that the 2019 judgment questioning the correctness of the Aadhaar verdict was relevant and that the apex court must wait for a larger bench of seven judges to decide on these significant issues. He also drew attention to the Sabarimala case where a nine-judge bench had referred certain questions of law to a larger bench while keeping the review petitions pending. He held that it is a constitutional error to conclude that no ground existed for reviewing the judgment, which might have serious consequences not just for judicial discipline, but for justice as well.
Final Verdict
Despite the dissenting opinion terming it a “constitutional error,” by a majority verdict, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions seeking a review of its 2018 judgment that validated the Aadhaar Act.
What is a Money Bill?
According to Article 110 of the Constitution, a bill is termed a money bill if it contains provisions dealing with certain financial matters like imposition or abolition of any tax, the regulation of borrowing of money by the Union government, and other similar issues.
Difference between Money and Financial Bills
The difference between money and financial bills largely lie in their specific provisions, necessity of speaker certification, house of introduction, President’s recommendation, and rules for acceptance or rejection. These differences are significant in understanding not just the case in context but also the overall functioning of financial legislations in India.
This Supreme Court verdict on Aadhaar Act (2016) is pivotal as it solidifies aspects of constitutional law, especially those linked to money bills and speaker certification.