ValkyaEditorial

Tagged “chandrachud-dissent”

1 article on chandrachud-dissent.

Landmark JudgmentSupreme Court of India

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar): how a five-judge Bench upheld the Aadhaar architecture — and the Chandrachud dissent

On 26 September 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench held by 4:1 that the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was constitutionally valid in substantial part, that its passage as a Money Bill was within Parliament's competence, and that Section 7 — the mandatory linking of Aadhaar with benefits — was sustainable. Section 57 — permitting private entities to seek Aadhaar authentication — and parts of Section 33(2) were struck down. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dissented entirely. A digest of the judgment, the Money Bill question, and the doctrinal arc from the 9-judge privacy ruling through this 5-judge substantive engagement.

Valkya Editorial··10 min