ORDER :

Permission to file Review Petition(s) is granted.

Delay condoned.

Prayer for open Court/personal hearing of Review Petition(s) is rejected.

The present review petitions have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 26.09.2018. W e have perused the review petitions as w ell as the grounds in support thereof. In our opinion, no case for review of judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 is made out. We hasten to add that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. The review petitions are accordingly dismissed.

Consequently, prayer for urging additional grounds in Review Petition (Civil) No. 22/2019 stands rejected.

JUDGMENT :

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

1. I regret my inability to agree with the decision of the majority in dismissing the present batch of review petitions.

2. This batch of petitions seeks a review of the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1 [“ Puttaswamy (Aadhar-5J.” ]. Among the issues which arose for decision, the Court had to answer two critical questions: (i) whether the decision of the Speaker of the House of People[‘House of People’ interchangeably referred as ‘Lok Sabha’] under Article 110(3) of the Constitution, to certify a bill as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110(1) is final and binding, or can be subject to judicial review; and (ii) if the decision is subject to judicial review, whether the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (the “Aadhaar Act”) had been correctly certified as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110(1) of the Constitution.

3. On the first question, the majority (speaking through Dr Justice A.K. Sikri) stated that “[j]udicial review [of whether a Bill is a ‘Money Bill’] would be admissible under certain circumstances having regard to the law laid down by this Court”[ Id at paras 455-464]. While answering the second question, the majority held that Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act had elements of a ‘Money Bill’, and the other provisions were incidental to the ‘core’ of the Aadhaar Act. Hence, the majority held that the Aadhaar Act had been correctly certified as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110(1).

4. In his concurring opinion, Justice Ashok Bhushan answered the first question by holding that the decision of the Speaker of the House of People under Article 110(1) could be subject to judicial review when it was in breach of a constitutional provision. Drawing a distinction between an irregularity of procedure and a substantive illegality, Justice Ashok Bhushan held:

“901. There is a clear difference between the subject “irregularity of procedure” and “substantive illegality”. When a Bill does not fulfil the essential constitutional condition under Article 110(1), the said requirement cannot be said to be evaporated only on certification by Speaker. Accepting the submission that certification immunes the challenge on the ground of not fulfilling the constitutional condition, the Court will be permitting constitutional provisions to be ignored and bypassed. We, thus, are of the view that decision of the Speaker certifying the Bill as Money Bill is not only a matter of procedure and in the event, any illegality has occurred in the decision and the decision is clearly in breach of the constitutional provisions, the decision is subject to judicial review.”

However, in answering the second question, Justice Bhushan’s concurring opinion agreed with the majority and held that the Aadhaar Act had been correctly certified by the Speaker of the House of People as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110(1).

5. The opinion authored by me, answered the first question by holding that:

“1080. The obligation placed on the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to certify whether a Bill is a Money Bill is not a mere matter of “procedure” contemplated under Article 122. It is a constitutional requirement, which ha