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 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