38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, December 15, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Aadhaar Mandatory For Govt. Subsidies & PAN But Not For Mobile Connection And Bank Account [Read Judgment]

By LawStreet News Network      26 September, 2018 12:00 AM      0 Comments
Indian Penal Code

In a much-awaited judgment, the Supreme Court today (September 26th, 2018) has upheld the validity of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 by a 4:1 majority.

The judgment was passed by a Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and comprising of Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan after 38 days long hearing spread over four months. Justice Chandrachud dissented from the majority.

The Bench held that Sections 7 and 8 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, is not violative of the fundamental right to privacy and said that the benefits that Aadhaar provides particularly to the marginalized sections of society outweighs the problems surrounding exclusion.

Lot of people who will benefit due to inclusion cannot be denied due to exclusion of few; Cant throw baby out with bathwater, Justice Sikri wrote in the judgment.

The Bench has, however, struck down some provisions of the Aadhaar Act, 2016. These include Section 33 (1), Section 33 (2) and Section 57.

Section 33 (1) that provides for disclosure of information on the basis of a court order has been struck down, with the Court stating that it should provide for giving the individual an opportunity to be heard.

Section 33 (2) deals with the requirement of disclosure of Aadhaar information to an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India. While Section 57 authorizes the use of Aadhaar number for establishing the identity of an individual for any purpose, whether by the State or any body corporate or person.

Further, the Bench also held that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for obtaining a mobile connection and for opening bank accounts. However, the court made it mandatory to link Aadhaar for government subsidies and PAN by upholding Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Moreover, the Bench also upheld the passing of the Aadhaar Bill as a Money Bill to which Justice Chandrachud dissented by stating that Passing of bill as money bill when it does not qualify as a money bill is a fraud on Constitution, violates the Basic Structure.

The hearing in the Aadhaar case was started on January 17, 2018, and concluded in May 2018. The Aadhaar hearing was one of the longest hearings in the Supreme Court, second only to Kesavananda Bharati case.



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

ranveer-singhs-dhurandhar-barred-from-release-across-gulf-states-amid-content-sensitivity-concerns
Trending CelebStreet
Ranveer Singh’s Dhurandhar Barred from Release Across Gulf States Amid Content Sensitivity Concerns

Ranveer Singh’s Dhurandhar fails to secure release approval in six GCC countries amid concerns over politically sensitive content.

14 December, 2025 12:40 AM

TOP STORIES

scwla-hails-supreme-courts-historic-30-reservation-for-women-in-state-bar-councils-a-landmark-leap-for-gender-parity-in-the-legal-profession
Trending Legal Insiders
SCWLA Hails Supreme Court’s Historic 30% Reservation for Women in State Bar Councils: A Landmark Leap for Gender Parity in the Legal Profession [Read Press Release]

Supreme Court orders 30% reservation for women in State Bar Councils; SCWLA welcomes the landmark verdict as a major step toward gender equality in the legal profession.

09 December, 2025 04:45 PM
only-central-state-employees-fall-under-section-2e-gratuity-exclusion-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Only Central, State Employees Fall Under Section 2(e) Gratuity Exclusion: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court rules KSBC retired abkari workers are entitled to gratuity, holding that Section 2(e) exclusion applies only to government employees.

09 December, 2025 08:28 PM
civic-bodies-have-authority-to-revise-property-tax-rates-courts-cannot-substitute-judgment-on-policy-decisions-sc
Trending Judiciary
Civic Bodies Have Authority to Revise Property Tax Rates; Courts Cannot Substitute Judgment on Policy Decisions: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court upholds municipal autonomy to revise property tax rates, ruling that courts cannot interfere in policy decisions absent arbitrariness or illegality.

09 December, 2025 08:35 PM
hostile-witness-testimony-cannot-be-rejected-in-toto-supreme-court-reiterates-settled-legal-position
Trending Judiciary
Hostile Witness Testimony Cannot Be Rejected in Toto: Supreme Court Reiterates Settled Legal Position [Read Judgment]

Hostile witness testimony cannot be rejected entirely, the Supreme Court held, reaffirming that credible portions supporting prosecution or defence must still be considered.

09 December, 2025 08:44 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email