BINOY VISWAM versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 09-06-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 22 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 7 S.C.R. 1 
BINOY VISWAM 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 247 of2017) 
JUNE 09, 2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) · 
Income Tax Act, 1961: 
s.139AA - Constitutionality of- s.139AA makes it compulsory 
A 
B 
for assessees to give aadhaar number - Constitutional validity of C 
s.139AA challenged on the ground that since enrolment under 
Aadhaar Act is voluntary, it canno1 be made compulsory under the 
· Income Tax Act - Held: The purpose for enrolment under the 
Aadhaar Act is to avail benefits of various welfare schemes etc. as 
stipulated in. s. 7 of.th.e Aadhaar Act - The purpose behind Income 
D 
Tax Act, on the other hand, is entirely different - For achieving the 
purpose such as curbing black money, money laundering and tax 
evasion etc., if the Parliament chooses to make the provision 
mandatory under the Income Tax Act, the competence of the 
Parliament cannot be questioned on the ground that it is 
impermissible only because under Aadhaar Act, the provision is 
directory in nature - It is the prerogative of the Parliament to make 
E 
a particular provision directory in one statute and mandatory/ 
compulsory in other - That by itself cannot be a ground to question 
the competence of the legislature - After all, Aadhaar Act is not a 
mother Act - Two laws, i.e., Aadhaar Act, on the one hand, and law 
in the form of s.139AA of the Act, on the other hand, are two different 
stand alone provisions/laws and validity of one cannot be examined 
in the light of provisions of other Acts - Thus, there is no conflict 
between the provisions of Aadhaar Act and s.139AA of Income Tax 
F 
Act in as much as when interpreted harmoniously they operate in 
distinct fields - Legislation - Interpretation of statutes - Harmonious 
0 G 
construction - Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other 
Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act. 
s.139AA - Purpose of- Held: s.139AA is aimed at seeding 
Aadhaar with PAN - One of the main objectives is to de-duplicate 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A PAN cards and to bring a situation where one person is not having 
more than one PAN card or a person is not able to get PAN cards in 
assumed/fictitious names - In such a scenario, if those persons who 
violate s. I 39AA of the Act without any consequence, the provision 
shall be rendered toothless - It is the prerogative of the Legislature 
B 
c 
to make penal provisions for violation of any law made by it - The 
requirement of giving Aadhaar enrolment number to the designated 
authority or stating this number in the income tax returns is directly 
connected with the issue of duplicate/fake PANs - Therefore, it 
cannot be denied that there has to be some provision stating the 
consequences for not complying with the requirements of s. l 39AA 
of the Act, more particularly when these requirements are found as 
not violative of Arts.14 and 19 - If Aadhar. number is not given, the 
said exercise may not be possible - Sub-section (1) of s. l 39AA 
stipulates that those who are not PAN holders, while applying for 
PAN, they are required to give Aadhaar number - At the same time, 
as far as existing PAN holders are concerned, since the impugned 
D provisions are yet to be considered on the touchstone of Art.21 of 
the Constitution, including on the debate around Right to Privacy 
and human dignity, etc. as limbs of Art.2I, till the said aspect of 
Art.2I is decided by the Constitution Bench a partial stay of the 
E 
F 
said proviso is necessary - Those who have already enrolled 
themselves under Aadhaar scheme would comply with the 
requirement of sub-section (2) of s.l 39AA of the Act -
However, 
those assessees who are not Aadhaar card holders and do not comply 
with the provision of s.139(2), their PAN cards be not treated as 
invalid for the time being - A person wJio is holder of PAN and if 
his PAN is invalidated, he is bound to suffer immensely in his day to 
day dealings, which situation should be avoided till the Constitution 
Bench authoritatively determines the argument of Art.21 of the 
Constitution - Since this course of action is adopted, in the 
interregnum, it would be permissible for the Parliament to consider 
as to whether there is a need to tone down the effect of the said 
G proviso by limiting the consequences - However, at the same time, 
proviso to s. l 39AA(2) cannot be read retrospectively - Constitution 
of India - Art.21. 
H 
s.139AA(2) proviso - Retrospective effect 

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