{"id":259160,"date":"2021-12-28T14:00:15","date_gmt":"2021-12-28T08:30:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=259160"},"modified":"2021-12-31T01:05:35","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T19:35:35","slug":"aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/","title":{"rendered":"Aadhaar| When 4:1 majority refused to review the Aadhaar-5 Judges verdict but Justice Chandrachud dissented"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Supreme Court: <\/strong>In spite of going through several rounds of litigation and long hours consideration, the Adhaar Controversy had once again popped up before the Supreme Court. The Constitution Bench comprising of A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed the review petition against the final verdict in <em>K.S.<\/em> \u00a0<em>Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 Judges) v Union of India<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/507jT8Z4\">(2019) 1 SCC 1<\/a>. Among the issues which arose for decision, the Court had to answer two critical questions:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li><em>Whether the decision of the Speaker of the House of People under Article 110(3) of the Constitution, to certify a bill as a \u2018Money Bill\u2019 under Article 110(1) is final and binding, or can be subject to judicial review; and <\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>If the decision is subject to judicial review, whether the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 had been correctly certified as a \u2018Money Bill\u2019 under Article 110(1) of the Constitution? <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The circumstances giving rise to the instant review petition were that the issue <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/thought-the-aadhaar-issue-was-over-with-k-s-puttaswamy-judgment-not-yet-heres-why\/\">whether judicial review can be exercised over a decision of the Speaker of the House of People under Article 110(3), arose subsequently before another Constitution Bench<\/a> in <em>Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd., <\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/9xO8pv12\"><em>(2020) 6 SCC 1<\/em><\/a><em>, <\/em>wherein the majority opinion noted that the first question was not adequately answered in the <em>Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.)<\/em> case and It also noted its doubts on the determination of the second question, consequently, the majority referred the matter to the larger Bench for consideration.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Majority Verdict <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">On the first question, the majority stated that judicial review of whether a Bill is a \u2018Money Bill\u2019 would be admissible under certain circumstances having regard to the law laid down by this Court. While answering the second question, the majority held that Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act had elements of a \u2018Money Bill\u2019, and the other provisions were incidental to the \u2018core\u2019 of the Aadhaar Act. Hence, the majority held that the Aadhaar Act had been correctly certified as a \u2018Money Bill\u2019 under Article 110(1).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Therefore, opining that <strong>change in the law or subsequent decision\/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review <\/strong>of a final judgment; the majority held that there was no case for review of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/aadhar-act-2016-constitutional-not-violative-of-right-to-privacy-linking-of-aadha-with-mobile-phone-number-bank-account-not-mandatory-sc\/\"><em>Aadhar verdict<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Dissenting View <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Maintaining his dissent from the majority like the final verdict on the issue, <strong>D.Y. Chandrachud, J.<\/strong>, once again expressed his dissent from the majority by observing that the analysis of the majority opinion in <em>Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.)<\/em> in relation to the second question, i.e., whether the Aadhaar Act was a \u2018Money Bill\u2019 under Article 110 had been doubted by a coordinate bench in Rojer Mathew, when the first question was referred to a larger bench. Since the larger bench has not been constituted, and is yet to make a determination, Justice Chandrachud stated,<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><em>\u201cDismissing the present batch of review petitions at this stage \u2013 a course of action adopted by the majority \u2013 would place a seal of finality on the issues in the present case, without the Court having the benefit of the larger bench\u2019s consideration of the very issues which arise before us.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In <strong><em>Rojer Mathew\u2019s case, <\/em><\/strong>another Constitution Bench had expressed,<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify; padding-left: 40px;\"><em>\u201c116. Upon an extensive examination of the matter, we notice <strong>that the majority in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1] pronounced the nature of the impugned enactment without first delineating the scope of Article 110(1) and principles for interpretation or the repercussions of such process<\/strong>. It is clear to us that the majority dictum&#8230;did not substantially discuss the effect of the word \u201conly\u201d in Article 110(1) and offers little guidance on the repercussions of a finding when some of the provisions of an enactment passed as a \u201cMoney Bill\u201d do not conform to Articles 110(1)(a) to (g). Its interpretation of the provisions of the Aadhaar Act was arguably liberal and the Court&#8217;s satisfaction of the said provisions being incidental to Articles 110(1)(a) to (f), it has been argued, is not convincingly reasoned, as might not be in accord with the bicameral parliamentary system envisaged under our constitutional scheme.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Calling it a constitutional error to hold at this stage that no ground exists to review the judgment, Justice Chandrachud opined that the larger bench\u2019s determination would have an undeniable impact on the validity of the reasons expressed in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.), on the constitutional issues pertaining to and arising out of the certification by the Speaker of the House of People.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Further on the issue 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 against a final judgment, Justice Chandrachud <strong>differentiated between a situation where a judgment attains finality and the view propounded by it is disapproved by a larger bench subsequently<\/strong> as the instant review petitions had all been filed before the judgment in <em>Rojer Mathew<\/em> was delivered and opined that <strong>there is a strong reason for not to dismiss them pending the decision of the larger bench, especially in light of the adverse consequences highlighted above.<\/strong><\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In view of the above, the review petitions were dismissed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/fVIS82pK\">(2021) 3 SCC 1<\/a>, decided on 11-01-2021]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #333399;\"><strong>Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put together this report<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Appearance by: <\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Petitioners: M. T. George, Advocate<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court: In spite of going through several rounds of litigation and long hours consideration, the Adhaar Controversy had once again popped <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":243203,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,38282],"tags":[48172,15921,3042,48175,48173,29430,48174],"class_list":["post-259160","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-decisions-of-the-constitution-benches-of-the-supreme-court","tag-adhaar","tag-constitution-bench","tag-Judicial_Review","tag-k-s-puttaswamy","tag-loksabha-speaker","tag-money-bill","tag-right-to-privact"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Aadhaar| When 4:1 majority refused to review the Aadhaar-5 Judges verdict but Justice Chandrachud dissented | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aadhaar| When 4:1 majority refused to review the Aadhaar-5 Judges verdict but Justice Chandrachud dissented\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: In spite of going through several rounds of litigation and long hours consideration, the Adhaar Controversy had once again popped\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-12-28T08:30:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-12-30T19:35:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/\",\"name\":\"Aadhaar| When 4:1 majority refused to review the Aadhaar-5 Judges verdict but Justice Chandrachud dissented | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-12-28T08:30:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-12-30T19:35:35+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":888},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aadhaar| When 4:1 majority refused to review the Aadhaar-5 Judges verdict but Justice Chandrachud dissented\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Aadhaar| When 4:1 majority refused to review the Aadhaar-5 Judges verdict but Justice Chandrachud dissented | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aadhaar| When 4:1 majority refused to review the Aadhaar-5 Judges verdict but Justice Chandrachud dissented","og_description":"Supreme Court: In spite of going through several rounds of litigation and long hours consideration, the Adhaar Controversy had once again popped","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-12-28T08:30:15+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-12-30T19:35:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/","name":"Aadhaar| When 4:1 majority refused to review the Aadhaar-5 Judges verdict but Justice Chandrachud dissented | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg","datePublished":"2021-12-28T08:30:15+00:00","dateModified":"2021-12-30T19:35:35+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg","width":1331,"height":888},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/aadhaar-when-41-majority-refused-to-review-the-aadhaar-5-judges-verdict-justice-chandrachud-dissented\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aadhaar| When 4:1 majority refused to review the Aadhaar-5 Judges verdict but Justice Chandrachud dissented"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":259301,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/30\/yearly-round-up-2021-supreme-court-constitution-bench\/","url_meta":{"origin":259160,"position":0},"title":"Yearly Round-up 2021| Supreme Court Constitution Bench","author":"Editor","date":"December 30, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Unlike the year 2020, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench has functioned limitedly in the year 2021, with the number of judgments delivered by the Constitution Bench being three. As we bid adieu to the year 2021, here is a brief recap of all the developments advanced by the Constitution Bench\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":222075,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/14\/thought-the-aadhaar-issue-was-over-with-k-s-puttaswamy-judgment-not-yet-heres-why\/","url_meta":{"origin":259160,"position":1},"title":"Thought the Aadhaar issue was over with K.S. Puttaswamy judgment? Not yet. Here&#8217;s why","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 14, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: On September 26, 2019, the 5-judge bench of former CJ Dipak Misra and A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan,\u00a0JJ, \u2018finally\u2019 put an end to the Aadhaar dilemma in a 4:1 verdict and declared that the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":222045,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/13\/breaking-rules-made-under-s-184-of-finance-act-struck-down-centre-to-make-new-rules-for-appointment-to-tribunals\/","url_meta":{"origin":259160,"position":2},"title":"Rules made under S. 184 of Finance Act struck down; Centre to make new Rules for appointment to Tribunals [Full Report]","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 13, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 5-judge Constitution Bench of Ranjan Goigoi, CJ and NV Ramana, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has upheld the validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 and held that the said Section does not suffer from excessive delegation of legislative functions as\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":207259,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/26\/breaking-review-petition-against-the-5-judge-bench-aadhaar-judgment-filed-in-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":259160,"position":3},"title":"Breaking| Review Petition against the 5-Judge Bench Aadhaar Judgment filed in SC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 26, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Petitioner named Imtiyaz Ali Palsaniya has filed for a review petition in the Supreme Court against the Constitution Bench decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar-5 Judge),\u00a02018 SCC Online SC 1642. In the1448-pages detailed judgment, 5- Judge Bench comprising of former CJ Dipak Misra and A.K. Sikri, A.M.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":334026,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/28\/justice-ks-puttaswamy-champion-right-to-privacy-obituary-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":259160,"position":4},"title":"Justice K.S Puttaswamy, a dedicated champion of Privacy Rights in India, passes away","author":"Sucheta","date":"October 28, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Late Justice K.S. Puttaswamy played a crucial role in the recognition of the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Know thy Judge&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Know thy Judge","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/judges-information\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Justice KS Puttaswamy passes away","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Justice-KS-Puttaswamy-passes-away.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Justice-KS-Puttaswamy-passes-away.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Justice-KS-Puttaswamy-passes-away.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Justice-KS-Puttaswamy-passes-away.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":207454,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/31\/2018-the-year-of-the-supreme-court-of-india\/","url_meta":{"origin":259160,"position":5},"title":"2018: The Year of the Supreme Court of India","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 31, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"As we step into the new year 2019, let us look back at some of the pathbreaking judgments delivered this year by the Honourable Supreme Court that will guide the legislature and the judiciary alike for decades to come. Passive Euthanasia Case Holding\u00a0\"right to die with dignity as a\u00a0fundamental right\",\u00a0a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259160","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=259160"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259160\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/243203"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259160"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259160"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259160"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}