The Supreme Court today witnessed a high voltage hearing in the Aadhaar case as Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and Senior Advocate Shyam Divan made vociferous submissions before a Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Navin Sinha..The petitions, filed by Shanta Sinha and Kalyani Sen Menon, have sought interim reliefs against making Aadhaar mandatory for 17 social services schemes..The matter had first come up before a Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, when the Court had issued notice to the Centre and tagged the case with the main matter, which is to be heard by a Constitution Bench. The matter was later mentioned before CJI JS Khehar, who had directed that the case be placed before a Division Bench for hearing on interim prayers..Consequently, the matter came up before the Division Bench today..As soon as the hearing began, Attorney General Rohatgi made vehement submissions against the matter being heard by the Division Bench. He said,.“I have serious objections. Identical prayers were made in another petition 6 months ago. In that case, a stay was sought. Notice was issued but no interim relief..I am sorry to say that this petition and the earlier petition are identical para by para. I can prove it.”.He also referred to the Court’s order of May 9, in which it had issued notice and tagged it with the Constitution Bench case. He said that the matter has to be heard by the Constitution Bench..Divan objected to Rohatgi’s submissions, contending that the earlier petition was filed before the notifications challenged in the current petition were passed. He submitted,.“It is correct that a writ petition has been filed before. However, these notifications against which we are seeking stay were issued after that other petition was filed. Those earlier IAs were never listed.”.Rohatgi then shot back asking what was the interim relief sought in the earlier case. Divan replied,.“Interim relief sought in that case was general in nature. The Act had not been operationalised in the manner it has been now. So we were anticipating actions and were seeking general interim relief.”.The Bench then asked why a second petition has been filed if a general relief was sought in the earlier petition. Divan submitted that he was not opposed to all the applications being heard together..“If you ask me whether these applications should be heard together, my answer would be ‘Yes’. But a specific date should be given”..“Were not interim reliefs granted in those earlier petitions?” asked Justice Khanwilkar?.“Yes, but they are breaching it. That is the point”, said Divan..Rohatgi replied that there can be no injunction against Parliament..“The injunction is against you (executive), not Parliament”, retorted Divan..Divan also explained why the matter had come before Division Bench. He said,.“We had pointed out to the CJI that main matter is before Constitution Bench. The CJI decided that we should go to Division Bench. The CJI sent us here. I don’t have an objection even if it is before Constitution Bench.”.Divan pointed out that there is a deadline of June 30 to enroll for these schemes using Aadhaar and that the matter should be listed before that..The Court recorded the Attorney General’s submissions and proceeded to defer the case till the June 27. The Court also directed that all the interim applications will be heard together.
The Supreme Court today witnessed a high voltage hearing in the Aadhaar case as Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and Senior Advocate Shyam Divan made vociferous submissions before a Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Navin Sinha..The petitions, filed by Shanta Sinha and Kalyani Sen Menon, have sought interim reliefs against making Aadhaar mandatory for 17 social services schemes..The matter had first come up before a Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, when the Court had issued notice to the Centre and tagged the case with the main matter, which is to be heard by a Constitution Bench. The matter was later mentioned before CJI JS Khehar, who had directed that the case be placed before a Division Bench for hearing on interim prayers..Consequently, the matter came up before the Division Bench today..As soon as the hearing began, Attorney General Rohatgi made vehement submissions against the matter being heard by the Division Bench. He said,.“I have serious objections. Identical prayers were made in another petition 6 months ago. In that case, a stay was sought. Notice was issued but no interim relief..I am sorry to say that this petition and the earlier petition are identical para by para. I can prove it.”.He also referred to the Court’s order of May 9, in which it had issued notice and tagged it with the Constitution Bench case. He said that the matter has to be heard by the Constitution Bench..Divan objected to Rohatgi’s submissions, contending that the earlier petition was filed before the notifications challenged in the current petition were passed. He submitted,.“It is correct that a writ petition has been filed before. However, these notifications against which we are seeking stay were issued after that other petition was filed. Those earlier IAs were never listed.”.Rohatgi then shot back asking what was the interim relief sought in the earlier case. Divan replied,.“Interim relief sought in that case was general in nature. The Act had not been operationalised in the manner it has been now. So we were anticipating actions and were seeking general interim relief.”.The Bench then asked why a second petition has been filed if a general relief was sought in the earlier petition. Divan submitted that he was not opposed to all the applications being heard together..“If you ask me whether these applications should be heard together, my answer would be ‘Yes’. But a specific date should be given”..“Were not interim reliefs granted in those earlier petitions?” asked Justice Khanwilkar?.“Yes, but they are breaching it. That is the point”, said Divan..Rohatgi replied that there can be no injunction against Parliament..“The injunction is against you (executive), not Parliament”, retorted Divan..Divan also explained why the matter had come before Division Bench. He said,.“We had pointed out to the CJI that main matter is before Constitution Bench. The CJI decided that we should go to Division Bench. The CJI sent us here. I don’t have an objection even if it is before Constitution Bench.”.Divan pointed out that there is a deadline of June 30 to enroll for these schemes using Aadhaar and that the matter should be listed before that..The Court recorded the Attorney General’s submissions and proceeded to defer the case till the June 27. The Court also directed that all the interim applications will be heard together.