This is an archive article published on September 27, 2018
How Supreme Court accepted govt’s argument on Aadhaar as Money Bill
The court said that the Union government was “right” in its submission that benefit or service “ought to be understood in the context of targeted delivery to poorer and weaker sections of society”.
The court, however, did not agree with the amended rule of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) that mandated linking Aadhaar to bank accounts.
The majority verdict delivered on Wednesday agreed with the government’s main argument that the Aadhaar Act was passed as as a Money Bill to identify the correct beneficiary and ensure “targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services”.
The majority view of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices A K Sikri and A M Khanwilkar also observed that the Act meets the concept of “good governance and constitutional trust”.
The court said that the Union government was “right” in its submission that benefit or service “ought to be understood in the context of targeted delivery to poorer and weaker sections of society”. “The respondents (government of India) are right in their submission that the expression subsidy, benefit or service ought to be understood in the context of targeted delivery to poorer and weaker sections of society. Its connotation ought not to be determined in the abstract. For as an abstraction one can visualise a subsidy being extended by Parliament to the King; by Government to the Corporations or Banks; etc. The nature of subsidy or benefit would not be the same when extended to the poor and downtrodden for producing those conditions without which they cannot live a life with dignity,” Justice Sikri said.
It also agreed with Attorney General of India K K Venugopal’s argument that Section 7 of Aadhaar Act is the “core provision” which satisfies the conditions regarding Money Bill (Article 110) under the Constitution.
“That is the main function behind the Aadhaar Act and for this purpose, enrolment for Aadhaar number is prescribed in Chapter II which covers Sections 3 to 6. Residents are, thus, held entitled to obtain Aadhaar number. We may record here that such an enrolment is of voluntary nature. However, it becomes compulsory for those who seek to receive any subsidy, benefit or service under the welfare scheme of the government expenditure whereof is to be met from the Consolidated Fund of India,” the majority judgment said.
“It follows that authentication under Section 7 would be required as a condition for receipt of a subsidy, benefit or service only when such a subsidy, benefit or service is taken care of by Consolidated Fund of India. Therefore, Section 7 is the core provision of the Aadhaar Act and this provision satisfies the conditions of Article 110 of the Constitution,” it said.
The court, however, did not agree with the amended rule of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) that mandated linking Aadhaar to bank accounts.
The court pointed to Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s arguments that amending the PMLA rule “serves a legitimate State aim” as it was done to curb money laundering and black money and that the rule “was not arbitrary and satisfied proportionality test”. Disagreeing with the argument, the court said, “Nobody would keep black money in the bank account. We accept the possibility of opening an account in an assumed name and keeping black money therein which can be laundered as well. However, the persons doing such an Act, if at all, would be very few. More importantly, those having bank accounts with modest balance and routine transactions can be safely ruled out. Therefore, the provision in the present form does not meet the test of proportionality.”
As City Editor ( Delhi) at the Indian Express, Kaunain Sheriff leads city reporting with a sharp focus on accountability journalism, data-driven stories, and ground-level impact. As the National Health Editor he leads the newsroom’s in-depth coverage of pressing health issues.
He is the author of Johnson & Johnson Files: The Indian Secrets of a Global Giant, a definitive investigation into the accountability of one of the world’s most powerful pharmaceutical corporations.
Areas of Expertise
Investigative Reporting: Has deep expertise in investigative reporting spanning public health, regulatory affairs, drug safety, and the criminal justice system. His work sits at the intersection of governance, law, and accountability, with a particular focus on how regulatory failures, institutional lapses, and policy decisions affect citizens’ rights and safety.
Data Journalism: Has extensively on big data–driven investigations, including analyses of flagship government schemes and large datasets on criminal trials, uncovering systemic gaps.
Global Collaborations
Kaunain is a key contributor to major international journalistic projects:
The Implant Files: Collaborated with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) to expose global malpractices in the medical device industry.
Chinese Big-Data Investigation: Uncovered how a foreign data firm monitored thousands of prominent Indian institutions and individuals in real-time.
Awards & Recognition
His commitment to "Journalism of Courage" has been recognized with the industry's highest honors:
Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism
SOPA Award (Society of Publishers in Asia)
Red Ink Award (Mumbai Press Club)
Indian Express Excellence Awards (Triple recipient for investigations into the NSA abuse in UP, Vyapam scam, and the anti-Sikh riots).
Education: Studied Mechanical Engineering at Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU), Bangalore, before moving to Delhi to pursue his passion for journalism. His engineering training informs his analytical approach, enabling him to decode technical, legal, and data-heavy systems with precision.
Social media
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kaunain-sheriff-3a00ab99
X ( fromerly Twitter): @kaunain_s ... Read More
The court, however, did not agree with the amended rule of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) that mandated linking Aadhaar to bank accounts.
