- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
"Important issues relating to the interpretation of the Constitution arises in the present case which requires oral submissions before an open court", states written submissions filed on behalf of the review petitioners
A five judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde is set to hear a plea to review the Court's 2018 judgment where the constitutional validity of Aadhaar was upheld while placing some restrictions on its use. (Shanta Sinha and Another vs Union of India and Others)
The Bench conducting the in-chamber hearing will also comprise of Justices AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and L Nageswara Rao apart from CJI Bobde.
Submissions made by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan on behalf of the petitioners urge that the review against the verdict that upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other subsidies, benefits and services) Act, 2016 be heard in an open court.
The written submissions have been filed through Advocate Vipin Nair, drawn by Advocate Udayaditya Banerjee and settled by Senior Advocate Divan.
The primary ground for challenging the correctness of 2018 judgment is that the Act was "incorrectly certified as a Money Bill by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha."
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan submits
Citing the case of the Sabarimala review petitions, Divan has submitted in the temple entry case, at the stage of hearing review petitions, the Court "first granted an open-court hearing, and then upon finding inconsistency with the law laid down with respect to interpretation of Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution, referred the matter to a larger bench of 9-Judges for an authoritative pronouncement on the law."
Furthermore, the senior advocate states that the present case of review involves important issues relating to the interpretation of the Constitution which requires oral submissions before an open court hearing.
In November last year, another five-judge bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi had expressed doubts over the correctness of the verdict upholding the Aadhaar Act, which had been passed by the Parliament as a money Bill.
However, the review is not likely to take into account the November ruling, as the Supreme Court has held earlier that a change in law subsequent to the judgment cannot be valid grounds for review.