Thread by @prasanna_s

#Aadhaar hearing. @PChidambaram_IN continues arguments for his petitioner Jairam Ramesh, challenging the Aadhaar Act on the ground that it was incorrectly certified as a Money Bill. 1991 4 SCC 699...Subcommittee on judicial accountability v. UoI being read.

Explains the difference between various phrases such as : final, conclusive, and "shall not be questioned in any court".

Refers to S.R. Bommai case where despite finality of the satisfaction of President to proclaim an emergency or President rule...

...such satisfaction was held to be subject to judicial review.

Similar reference to Kihoto Hollohan case where final is distinguished as beyond appeal..but not beyond review.

Any Bill incorrectly passed as a Money Bill strikes at the root of one of the Basic features of the Constitution. Federalism. Rajyasabha is the council of the States.

Refers to Rajarampal v Speaker judgment.

Reading the difference between procedural irregularity and substantive illegality.

Reads article 122. Justice Bhushan agrees with him that judicial review on illegality is available ...and merely the ground of procedural irregularity is barred.

Goes on to read 2000 10 SCC 1.

Now goes to Mohammad Sidiqqi 2014 11 SCC 415 which first held that the question of money bill is beyond judicial review strikes a different note. It is a 3-judge bench decision.

Reads paras that refer to MSM sharma's case where it says validity of a law cannot be questioned on procedural illegality.

CJI discussing something with DYC J and Sikri J.

Back online. PC is continuing to argue on the Money Bill aspect. Now going through provision by provision on why such provision can be in a Money Bill.

Refers to "other purposes" in the objects of the Act.

Calls Section 57 the "most questionable" section. Can never be in a Money Bill.

DYC J says Section 57 clearly is not relatable to Article 110 so long as we cross the threshold of justiciability.

PC says 57 goes well beyond 110. Not even a pretense of compliance with 110. It can at best be a Financial Bill.

DYC J asks if the entire Act goes or only whether those provisions that could not have been a money bill will have to be struck down.

PC says there is only one Bill and if that Bill is not a money bill, the whole Act has to go.

Cites how in Australian constitution, there is a severability provision which is absent here in india. DYC J is not so sure.

PC adament that there is no severability here.

PC says this is primarily a UIDAI creation Bill and in its entirety cannot be a money bill.

PC says if this Bill can go through as a Money Bill..potentially any Bill can slip through in the guise of a Money Bill.

PC concludes. Has made an impact.

K.V.Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. commences for Petitioners.

He says the Act violates 14, 21 and Privacy. He says he will address the Bench on whether Union has discharged the burden of reasonableness. Also says he will address how S 59 is not a validation clause.

...Finally says he will address Section 7, exclusion and consequently unconstitutional.

In dealing with introduction to Section 7 argument...he says how it cannot be upheld on a promise made by the Union that the provision will be reasonably administered. (Contrasts how mere possibility of abuse cannot strike down...where a converse is also true).

CJI wants KVV to complete in 45 minutes. He has given elaborate written submissions. KVV says he will complete by 1 pm tomorrow.

He will now elaborate on Section 59.

DYC J and KVV converse on a strangely worded Section 59 which asserts non-facts as facts.

KVV says how the entire Act was drafted before Puttaswamy and therefore there was no attempt at balancing privacy interests.

(KVV was a junior in the chambers of A-G KKV many years ago. If the former succeeds here, that is another story in this case)