The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its verdict on a clutch of petitions including, the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act vis-a-vis citizens’ privacy and SC/ST promotion case on Wednesday. Along with these two, the verdict on a petition challenging the proposing of Aadhaar as a money bill will also be important as it would have a bearing on the powers of the Lok Sabha Speaker. 

Constitutional validity of Aadhar

A five-judge Constitution Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan is hearing the case.

Tomorrow, the SC will decide if the 12-digit Unique Identification number given out to 1.2 billion citizens, violates the Right to Privacy (guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution) or not. The linking of the 12-digit biometric number with various government services has been criticised by many for allegedly trying to violate the Right to Privacy. The government had made Aadhaar mandatory for a host of services and welfare measures, including passport, PAN cards, bank account, mobile service and driving licenses.

Hearing in the case had started in January and it reportedly went on for around 38 days spanning four-and-half-months making it the second longest case in the country after the Keshavananda Bharti case. The apex court had reserved the verdict in May this year.

The plea is said to be filed by the former High Court judge KS Puttaswamy on January 17.

Apart from the Aadhaar case, the apex court is likely to pronounce its judgement on Ayodhya and adultery that would have bearings on the right to privacy, politics and social morality.

SC/ST promotion case

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court will pronounce its verdict on SC/ST promotion case on Wednesday. On August 30, the Supreme Court had reserved its verdict on a clutch of petitions seeking that a seven-judge bench review its 2006 verdict which had put conditions for granting quota benefits for job promotions to SC/ST employees.

The top court’s five-judge bench, comprising CJI Deepak Misra, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Indu Malhotra, was examining whether its 12-year-old verdict (judgment on MV Nagraj Vs Union of India case-2006) that had dealt with the issue of providing reservation in promotion of SC/ST categories in government job promotions is right or wrong.

In its 2006 verdict in the M. Nagraj case, the Constitution bench had said that the states are bound to provide quantifiable data on the backwardness of scheduled castes (SC) and scheduled tribes (ST), the facts about their inadequate representation in government jobs and the overall administrative efficiency before providing quota in promotions to those belonging to these communities.