Reference was made in case Rojer Mathew vs South Indian Bank which held that there is nothing wrong in passing Aadhaar Act 2016 as a money bill, doubt on validity of constitutional bench judgement released on September 27, 2018.
The 5-judge bench in Rojer Mathew case on 13 November 2019 questioned this opinion, noting that “majority dictum in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) did not address significantly the effect of the term ‘only’ in Article 110(1) of the Constitution”. The written submissions, formulated by Advocate Udayaditya Banerjee, settled by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan and filed by AoR Vipin Nair, also relate to the open court hearing allowed in the Sabarimala review case.
Shanta Singh and another sought, for an open court hearing of the review on these mentioned grounds.
On September 27th, 2018, the Constitution Bench had upheld, by 4:1 majority, the constitutionality of Aaadhar Act 2016, with Justice Chandrachud dissenting. On the issue of passing it as money bill, the majority upheld the central government’s contention that a bill may be characterized as a ‘money bill’ if it incidentally covers the aspects referred to in Article 110(1) of the Constitution, clauses (a) to (g). The Centre claimed that the Aadhaar Act had a bearing on the expenses incurred by India’s Consolidated Fund, as it sought to make sure that subsidies are focused at authentic persons.
In Rojer Mathew, while evaluating the validity of incorporating regulations concerning the composition of the Tribunals in the Finance Act , 2017 (which is a money bill), in Aadhaar ‘s case, the CB doubted the view that a bill can be viewed as a money bill if it incidentally covers the subjects under Article 110.
The review petition has been listed before CJI S A Bobde, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan.