As seven petitioners, including Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh, were considered in the chamber, Justice DY Chandrachud again disagreed.
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court formed the Aadhaar Challenge constitutionalism The application for review has been rejected. Justice DY Chandrachud again disagreed. The matter was discussed in the chamber. The petitions of seven petitioners, including Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh, were considered. A bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S Abdul Nazir and Justice BR Gawai considered the case.
The petition sought reconsideration of the court’s decision as a reasonable restriction on personal privacy in order to carry out the government’s “legitimate purpose” of holding the petitions as a majority verdict. In the view of the majority held by the Constitution Bench, Aadhaar declared Aadhaar as a “unique” identity proof. While disputing his views, Justice DY Chandrachud termed Aadhaar as “constitutional”.
The petitioners sought permission to present it orally for an open court hearing in this case and on the grounds that it raised important issues related to the interpretation of the Constitution in the present case. A note written by senior advocate Shyam Dewan for reconsideration of the case said that in a judgment, a five-judge constitutional bench on November 13, 2018, on the basis of the case in Roger Matthew, expressed doubts about the validity of the judgment. v. Was South Indian Bank Limited
The court has referred the interpretation of Article 110 of the Constitution to a larger bench. He also cited the decision to reconsider the Sabarimala passed on November 14, 2018, where a five-judge bench allowed the hearing in open court. And then after finding inconsistencies with the prescribed law regarding the interpretation of Articles 25 and 226 of the Constitution, the court referred the matter to a larger bench of nine judges for an official announcement about the law. He again relied on the decision of the nine-judge Constitutional Bench in the May 11, 2020 Sabarimala case where the apex court, citing the permanence of the reference, said that the Supreme Court had the right to fix the status quo? Extensive and free rights.
On 26 September 2018, the Supreme Court gave an important decision regarding the Aadhaar number being urgent and violating its confidentiality. Four out of the five judges of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court said by a majority that the Aadhaar number is constitutionally valid. However, a five-judge bench did not give a unanimous verdict on this basis. Justice DY Chandrachud declared the Aadhaar number completely unconstitutional. Justice Chandrachud said that passing Aadhaar like a money bill is a betrayal of the constitution. The bench consisted of the then Chief Justice Justice Deepak Mishra, Justice AK Sikri, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan.