BEGHAR FOUNDATION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANR. versus JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) AND ORS.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 681 · Decided: 11-01-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
681
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 681
BEGHAR FOUNDATION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
AND ANR.
v.
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) AND ORS.
Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 45777 of 2018
in
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012)
JANUARY 11, 2021
[A. M. KHANWILKAR,
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,
ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER
AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
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 (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.
Constitution of India – Art. 110 – Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery
of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016
681
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
682
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
– 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 (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
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
683
(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) 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.