Personal hearing cannot be granted in Review Petition challenging Supreme Court verdict, when no case for review is made out
By majority, Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, on behalf of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice B. R. Gavai, dismissed the review Petition filed against Aadhar verdict, in which prayer for open Court or personal hearing was made, on ground that no case for review is made out.
In case before Court, analysis of the majority opinion in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) AIR 2018 SC (Supp) 1841 was in relation to the question - Whether the Aadhaar Act was a 'Money Bill' under Article 110 of Constitution has been doubted by a coordinate bench in AIROnline 2019 SC 1514, and the first question was referred to a larger bench. The larger bench has not been constituted, and is yet to make a determination. On this point Supreme Court remarkably held that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
On the other hand Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, dissented from majority view and opined that since the larger bench has not been constituted, and is yet to make a determination, dismissing the review petitions would place a seal of finality on the issues, without the Court having the benefit of the larger bench's consideration of the very issues. And also held that it is a constitutional error to held that no ground exists to review the judgment.
The failure to re-contextualize the decision of the larger bench with regard to the Aadhaar Act being a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) will render it a mere academic exercise.
Review petitions had all been filed before the judgment in AIROnline 2019 SC 1514 was delivered on 13 November 2019. The review petitions were pending on the date when a reference was made to a larger bench. If these review petitions are to be dismissed and the larger bench reference were to disagree with the analysis of the majority opinion in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) Case, it would have serious consequences - not just for judicial discipline, but also for the ends of justice. Constitutional principles of consistency and the rule of law would require that a decision on the Review Petitions should await the reference to the Larger Bench.
