IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.……………/2021

(Diary No. 45777/2018)

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 494 OF 2012

Beghar Foundation 

through its Secretary and Anr.           Petitioner(s)

versus

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Ors. Respondent(s)

with

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3948 OF 2018

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 231 OF 2016

Jairam Ramesh Petitioner(s)

versus

Union of India and Ors.        Respondent(s)

with

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 22 OF 2019

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1014 OF 2017

1

M.G. Devasahayam Petitioner(s)

versus

Union of India and Anr.        Respondent(s)

with

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 31 OF 2019

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1058 OF 2017

Mathew Thomas  Petitioner(s)

versus

Union of India and Ors.        Respondent(s)

with

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.……………/2021

(Diary No. 48326/2018)

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 494 OF 2012

Imtiyaz Ali Palsaniya Petitioner(s)

versus

Union of India and Ors.      Respondent(s)

with

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 377 OF 2019

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 342 OF 2017

2

Shantha Sinha and Anr. Petitioner(s)

versus

Union of India and Anr.               Respondent(s)

with

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 924 OF 2019

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 829 OF 2013

S.G. Vombatkere and Anr.     Petitioner(s)

versus

Union of India and Ors.   Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Permission to file Review Petition(s) is granted.

   Delay condoned.

Prayer   for   open   Court/personal   hearing   of   Review

Petition(s) is rejected.

The present review petitions have been filed against

the final judgment and order dated 26.09.2018.  We have

perused the review petitions as well as the grounds in

3

support thereof.   In our opinion, no case for review of

judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 is made out.   We

hasten   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.   The review

petitions are accordingly dismissed.

Consequently, prayer for urging additional grounds in

Review Petition (Civil) No. 22/2019 stands rejected.

        ………….…...................J.

(A.M. Khanwilkar)

………….…...................J.

 (Ashok Bhushan)

       ………….…...................J.

        (S. Abdul Nazeer)

………….…...................J.

 (B. R. Gavai)

New Delhi;

January 11, 2021.

4

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL INHERENT/ APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 45777 of 2018

Beghar Foundation & Anr. .... Petitioners

Versus

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Ors. .... Respondents

With

Review Petition (Civil) No. 3948 of 2018

in

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 231 of 2016

With

Review Petition (Civil) No. 22 of 2019

in

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1014 of 2017

With

Review Petition (Civil) No. 31 of 2019

in

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1058 of 2017

With

Diary No. 48326 of 2018

5

With

Review Petition (Civil) No. 377 of 2019

in

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 342 of 2017

And With

Review Petition (Civil) No. 924 of 2019

in

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 829 of 2013

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1 I regret my inability to agree with the decision of the majority in dismissing

the present batch of review petitions.

2 This batch of petitions seeks a review of the decision of a Constitution

Bench of this Court in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v Union of India

1

[“Puttaswamy (Aadhar-5J.”]. Among the issues which arose for decision, the

Court had to answer two critical questions: (i) whether the decision of the

Speaker of the House of People

2

under Article 110(3) of the Constitution, to certify

a bill as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110(1) is final and binding, or can be subject

to judicial review; and (ii) if the decision is subject to judicial review, whether the

Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and

1 (2019) 1 SCC 1

2 ‘House of People’ interchangeably referred as ‘Lok Sabha’

6

Services) Act, 2016 (the “Aadhaar Act”) had been correctly certified as a ‘Money

Bill’ under Article 110(1) of the Constitution.

3 On the first question, the majority (speaking through Dr Justice A.K. Sikri)

stated that “[j]udicial review [of whether a Bill is a ‘Money Bill’] would be

admissible under certain circumstances having regard to the law laid down by

this Court”

3

. While answering the second question, the majority held that Section

7 of the Aadhaar Act had elements of a ‘Money Bill’, and the other provisions

were incidental to the ‘core’ of the Aadhaar Act. Hence, the majority held that the

Aadhaar Act had been correctly certified as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110(1).

4 In his concurring opinion, Justice Ashok Bhushan answered the first

question by holding that the decision of the Speaker of the House of People

under Article 110(1) could be subject to judicial review when it was in breach of a

constitutional provision. Drawing a distinction between an irregularity of

procedure and a substantive illegality, Justice Ashok Bhushan held:

“901. There is a clear difference between the subject

“irregularity of procedure” and “substantive illegality”. When a

Bill does not fulfil the essential constitutional condition under

Article 110(1), the said requirement cannot be said to be

evaporated only on certification by Speaker. Accepting the

submission that certification immunes the challenge on the

ground of not fulfilling the constitutional condition, the Court

will be permitting constitutional provisions to be ignored and

bypassed. We, thus, are of the view that decision of the

Speaker certifying the Bill as Money Bill is not only a matter of

procedure and in the event, any illegality has occurred in the

decision and the decision is clearly in breach of the

constitutional provisions, the decision is subject to judicial

review.”

However, in answering the second question, Justice Bhushan’s concurring

opinion agreed with the majority and held that the Aadhaar Act had been correctly

3 Id at paras 455-464

7

certified by the Speaker of the House of People as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article

110(1).

5 The opinion authored by me, answered the first question by holding that:

“1080. The obligation placed on the Speaker of the Lok

Sabha to certify whether a Bill is a Money Bill is not a mere

matter of “procedure” contemplated under Article 122. It is a

constitutional requirement, which has to be fulfilled according

to the norms set out in Article 110. Article 122 will not save the

action of the Speaker, if it is contrary to constitutional norms

provided under Article 110. The Court, in the exercise of its

power of judicial review, can adjudicate upon the validity of

the action of the Speaker if it causes constitutional infirmities.

Article 122 does not envisage exemption from judicial review,

if there has been a constitutional infirmity. The Constitution

does not endorse a complete prohibition of judicial review

under Article 122. It is only limited to an “irregularity of

procedure”.”

However, on the second question, my decision dissented with the majority and

Justice Ashok Bhushan, and held that the decision of the Speaker of the House

of People to certify the Aadhaar Act as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110(1) was

unconstitutional.

6 The issue 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 in Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd

4

(“Rojer

Mathew”) This was in the context of whether some of the provisions of the

Finance Act, 2017 (relating to appointments to Tribunals and the conditions of

service of members) could have been certified as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110.

4 (2020) 6 SCC 1

8

7 The judgment delivered by the majority (speaking through Chief Justice

Ranjan Gogoi) answered this question by referring to the judgment in

Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) in the following terms:

“102. A coordinate Bench of this Court in K.S. Puttaswamy

(Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5

J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1] , was tasked with a

similar question of the certification of “Money Bill” accorded to

the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other

Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 by the Speaker

of Lok Sabha. The majority opinion after noting the important

role of the Rajya Sabha in a bicameral legislative set-up,

observed that Article 110 being an exceptional provision, must

be interpreted narrowly. Although the majority opinion did not

examine the correctness of the decisions in Mohd. Siddiqui

[Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P., (2014) 11 SCC 415]

and Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal [Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v.

State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 183 : (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] or

conclusively pronounce on the scope of jurisdiction or power

of this Court to judicially review certification by the Speaker

under Article 110(3), yet, it independently reached a

conclusion that the impugned enactment fell within the four

corners of Article 110(1) and hence was a “Money Bill”. The

minority view rendered, however, explicitly overruled both

Mohd. Siddiqui [Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P., (2014)

11 SCC 415] and Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal [Yogendra Kumar

Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 183 : (2016) 2 SCC

(Cri) 1] .

103. The majority opinion in Puttaswamy [K.S.

Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1

SCC 1] by examining whether or not the impugned

enactment was in fact a “Money Bill” under Article 110

without explicitly dealing with whether or not certification

of the Speaker is subject to judicial review, has kept

intact the power of judicial review under Article 110(3). It

was further held therein that the expression “Money Bill”

cannot be construed in a restrictive sense and that the

wisdom of the Speaker of Lok Sabha in this regard must be

valued, save where it is blatantly violative of the scheme of

the Constitution. We respectfully endorse the view in

Puttaswamy [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of

India, (2019) 1 SCC 1] and are in no doubt that Mohd.

Siddiqui [Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P., (2014) 11

SCC 415] and Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal [Yogendra Kumar

Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 183 : (2016) 2 SCC

(Cri) 1] insofar as they put decisions of the Speaker

9

under Article 110(3) beyond judicial review, cannot be

relied upon.”

(emphasis supplied)

However, the majority opinion noted that the first question was not adequately

answered in the above decision in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.). It also noted its

doubts on the determination of the second question:

“116. Upon an extensive examination of the matter, we notice

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. It is clear

to us that the majority dictum in K.S. Puttaswamy

(Aadhaar-5 J.) [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union

of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1] did not substantially discuss the

effect of the word “only” 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 “Money Bill”

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'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. Without

expressing a firm and final opinion, it has to be observed that

the analysis in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) [K.S.

Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1]

makes its application difficult to the present case and raises a

potential conflict between the judgments of coordinate

Benches.

117. Given the various challenges made to the scope of

judicial review and interpretative principles (or lack thereof),

as adumbrated by the majority in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-

5 J.) [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India,

(2019) 1 SCC 1] and the substantial precedential impact of its

analysis of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, it becomes essential to

determine its correctness. Being a Bench of equal strength as

that in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) [K.S. Puttaswamy

(Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1] , we

accordingly direct that this batch of matters be placed before

10

the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, on the administrative

side, for consideration by a larger Bench.”

(emphasis supplied)

As a consequence, the majority opinion held that “[t]he issue and question of

Money Bill, as defined under Article 110(1) of the Constitution, and certification

accorded by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha in respect of Part-XIV of the Finance

Act, 2017 is referred to a larger Bench”

5

.

8 In his partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion, Justice Deepak

Gupta agreed with the majority opinion in referring the first question of ‘Money

Bill’ to a larger bench thus:

“365. I am in total agreement with the Chief Justice inasmuch

as he has held that the decision of the Hon'ble Speaker of the

House of People under Article 110(3) of the Constitution is not

beyond judicial review. I also agree with his views that

keeping in view the high office of the Speaker, the scope of

judicial review in such matters is extremely restricted. If two

views are possible then there can be no manner of doubt that

the view of the Speaker must prevail. Keeping in view the lack

of clarity as to what constitutes a Money Bill, I agree with the

Hon'ble Chief Justice that the issue as to whether Part XIV of

the Finance Act, 2017, is a Money Bill or not may be referred

to a larger Bench.”

Similarly, another partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion, authored by me,

held thus:

“346. Though the present judgment [referring to the partly

concurring and partly dissenting opinion] analyses the ambit

of the word “only” in Article 110(1) and the interpretation of

sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause (1) of Article 110 and

concludes that Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 could not

have been validly enacted as a Money Bill, I am in agreement

with the reasons which have been set out by the learned

5 Supra at note 3, at para 223.1

11

Chief Justice of India to refer the aspect of Money Bill to a

larger Bench and direct accordingly.”

9 Consequently, the correctness of the judgment in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-

5J.), in relation to what constitutes a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110 of the

Constitution, the extent of judicial review over a certification by the Speaker of the

House of People and the interpretation which has been placed on the provisions

of the Aadhaar Act while holding the enactment to be a ‘Money Bill’, are issues

which will be resolved by a larger bench, which is yet to be constituted.

10The present batch of review petitions, in challenging the correctness of the

judgment in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.), assails the reasoning in the opinion of

the majority on whether the Aadhaar Act was a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110. The

details of the review petitions, are summarised below:

(i)Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 45777 of 2018 – This petition was filed

on 6 December 2018, and its sub-Ground (e) calls for a review of

Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) in which the majority opinion upheld the

certification of the Aadhaar Act as a ‘Money Bill’, which rests on the

erroneous assumption that Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act is its core

provision (Grounds XXIII-XXVII).

(ii)Review Petition (Civil) No. 3948 of 2018 – This petition was filed on 23

October 2018, and seeks a review of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) in

relation to the majority opinion upholding the certification of the Aadhaar

Act as a ‘Money Bill’ within the meaning of Article 110 (Grounds I-VII).

12

(iii)Review Petition (Civil) No. 22 of 2019 – This petition was filed on 15

December 2018, and seeks a review of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) in

relation to the majority opinion upholding the certification of the Aadhaar

Act as a ‘Money Bill’, and its consequence on the constitutionality of the

enactment (Grounds I-VI).

(iv)Review Petition (Civil) No. 31 of 2019 – This petition was filed on 21

December 2018, and seeks a review of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) in

relation to the majority opinion holding that the Aadhaar Act was correctly

certified as a ‘Money Bill’ by the Speaker of the House of People by merely

relying on Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act (Grounds GG-II).

(v)Diary No. 48326 of 2018 – This petition was filed on 24 December 2018,

and seeks a review of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) in relation to the

majority opinion upholding the Aadhaar Act’s certification as a ‘Money Bill’,

which eliminated the possibility of discussion before the Rajya Sabha

(Grounds V-W).

(vi)Review Petition (Civil) No. 377 of 2019 – This petition was filed on 10

January 2019, and seeks a review of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) in

relation to the majority opinion holding that the Aadhaar Act could have

been certified as a ‘Money Bill’ at the time of its introduction in the Lok

Sabha (Ground A).

(vii)Review Petition (Civil) No. 924 of 2019 – This petition was filed on 12

January 2019, and seeks a review of Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) in

relation to the majority opinion upholding the Aadhaar Act’s certification as

13

a ‘Money Bill’ in terms of Article 110(1) even though it contained provisions

which affected the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution

(Ground A).

11The 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 (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 re-

contextualize the decision of the larger bench with regard to the Aadhaar Act

being a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110(1) will render it a mere academic exercise.

14

12It is important to draw a distinction with a situation where a judgment

attains finality and the view propounded by it is disapproved by a larger bench

subsequently. In the present case, the above-mentioned review petitions had all

been filed before the judgment in Rojer Mathew was delivered on 13 November

2019. The review petitions were pending on the date when a reference was made

to a larger bench in Rojer Mathew. These review petitions were previously listed

before a five-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra on 25 August 2020, and

were not disposed of. Hence, these review petitions have continued to remain

pending until now, and there is a strong reason for us not to dismiss them

pending the decision of the larger bench, especially in light of the adverse

consequences highlighted above.

13In Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9 J.) (2) v Indian Young

Lawyers Assn.

6

, a nine-judge bench of this Court had to determine whether a

reference could be made to a larger bench in a pending review petition.

Answering this in the affirmative, the Court held that it need not admit the review

petitions before referring the question to a larger bench. Further, the court noted

that such a question could also be a pure question of law. In explaining the power

of this Court to review its own judgments, Chief Justice S A Bobde, speaking for

the Bench, held thus:

“29. Order LV Rule 6 makes it crystal clear that the inherent

power of this Court to make such orders as may be

necessary for the ends of justice shall not be limited by the

Rules. In S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka [S. Nagaraj v. State

of Karnataka, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 320]

, it was observed that even when there was no statutory

provision and no rules were framed by the highest court

indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its

6 (2020) 9 SCC 121

15

orders, the courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of

process or miscarriage of justice. It was further held that this

Court is not precluded from recalling or reviewing its own

order if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the sake

of justice. The logical extension to the above is that reference

of questions of law can be made in any pending proceeding

before this Court, including the instant review proceedings, to

meet the ends of justice.”

14If these review petitions are to be dismissed and the larger bench

reference in Rojer Mathew 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. In all humility, I conclude that the

constitutional principles of consistency and the rule of law would require that a

decision on the Review Petitions should await the reference to the Larger Bench.

…….………….…………………...........................J.

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

New Delhi;

January 11, 2021.

16

ITEM NO.1001 SECTION PIL-W

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 45777/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-09-2018

in W.P.(C) No. No. 494/2012 passed by the Supreme Court Of India)

BEGHAR FOUNDATION & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

JUSTICE K.S.PUTTASWAMY(RETD) & ORS. Respondent(s)

IA No. 11039/2019 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE REVIEW

PETITION

IA No. 177563/2018 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW PETITION

IA No. 177567/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT)

WITH

R.P.(C) No. 3948/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 231/2016 (PIL-W)

(FOR

FOR ORAL HEARING [permission to to be heard R.P. in open court] ON

IA 182747/2018

IA No. 182747/2018 - ORAL HEARING)

R.P.(C) No. 22/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 1014/2017 (PIL-W)

(IA

FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA

182749/2018

FOR APPLICATION FOR LISTING REVIEW PETITION IN OPEN COURT ON IA

182750/2018

FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW PETITION ON IA 182751/2018

17

FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA

182753/2018

IA No. 182750/2018 - APPLICATION FOR LISTING REVIEW PETITION IN OPEN

COURT

IA No. 182751/2018 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW PETITION

IA No. 182749/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT

IA No. 182753/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL

DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

R.P.(C) No. 31/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 1058/2017 (PIL-W)

(FOR

FOR ORAL HEARING ON IA 185123/2018

FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW PETITION ON IA 185125/2018

IA No. 185125/2018 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW PETITION

IA No. 185123/2018 - ORAL HEARING)

Diary No(s). 48326/2018 (PIL-W)

( FOR APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE REVIEW PETITION ON IA

186187/2018

FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 186188/2018

FOR APPLICATION FOR LISTING REVIEW PETITION IN OPEN COURT ON IA

186190/2018

IA No. 186190/2018 - APPLICATION FOR LISTING REVIEW PETITION IN OPEN

COURT

IA No. 186187/2018 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE REVIEW

PETITION

IA No. 186188/2018 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)

R.P.(C) No. 377/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 342/2017 (PIL-W)

(IA

FOR PERSONAL HEARING BEFORE THE COURT ON IA 6225/2019

FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA

6231/2019

IA No. 6231/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT

IA No. 6225/2019 - PERSONAL HEARING BEFORE THE COURT)

R.P.(C) No. 924/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 829/2013 (PIL-W)

18

(FOR

FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW PETITION ON IA 7279/2019

FOR APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS ON IA 7281/2019

IA No. 7281/2019 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS

IA No. 7279/2019 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW PETITION)

Date : 11-01-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI

By Circulation

UPON perusing papers the Court made the following

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar (on behalf of himself,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul

Nazeer and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai) passed the order of the

Bench comprising His Lordship, Hon’ble Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y.

Chandrachud, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice

S. Abdul Nazeer and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai. The operative

portion of the order is as under:

“The present review petitions have been filed against the

final judgment and order dated 26.09.2018. We have

perused the review petitions as well as the grounds in

support thereof. In our opinion, no case for review of

judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 is made out. We

hasten 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. The

review petitions are accordingly dismissed.

19

Consequently, prayer for urging additional grounds

in Review Petition (Civil) No. 22/2019 stands

rejected.”

Hon’ble Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud passed a

separate dissenting judgment. The operative portion of the judgment

is as under:

“14.If these review petitions are to be dismissed and the

larger bench reference in Rojer Mathew 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. In all humility, I conclude that the

constitutional principles of consistency and the rule of law

would require that a decision on the Review Petitions should

await the reference to the Larger Bench.”

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

[Signed order and reportable judgment are placed on the file]

20