Supreme Court rejects pleas seeking review of 2018 Aadhaar verdict

The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of pleas seeking review of its 2018 verdict which had upheld the Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid but struck down some of its provisions, including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar, by a majority of 4:1, rejected the review pleas against the apex court's September 26, 2018 verdict. Justice D Y Chandrachud, one of the five-judges of the bench, dissented with the majority order and said that review petitions be kept pending until a larger bench decides the question related to certification of a bill as a money bill. Justice Chandrachud, in his famous dissenting verdict in 2018 in the case, had held that Aadhaar Act should not have been passed as money bill as it amounts to a fraud on the Constitution and is liable to be struck down. It was argued earlier in the apex court by the petitioners challenging the provisions of

Supreme Court rejects pleas seeking review of 2018 Aadhaar verdict
The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of pleas seeking review of its 2018 verdict which had upheld the Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid but struck down some of its provisions, including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar, by a majority of 4:1, rejected the review pleas against the apex court's September 26, 2018 verdict. Justice D Y Chandrachud, one of the five-judges of the bench, dissented with the majority order and said that review petitions be kept pending until a larger bench decides the question related to certification of a bill as a money bill. Justice Chandrachud, in his famous dissenting verdict in 2018 in the case, had held that Aadhaar Act should not have been passed as money bill as it amounts to a fraud on the Constitution and is liable to be struck down. It was argued earlier in the apex court by the petitioners challenging the provisions of