(1) The question whether Aadhar infringes the fundamental right to privacy would be mostly a question of law, though the relevant facts as to how and in what manner Aadhar is implemented (which would violate privacy) may also be quite relevant to decide this issue.
(2) In the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1955) 2 SCR 603 : AIR 1955 SC 661, a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, held that there is nothing in our Constitution which prevents Supreme Court from departing from a previous decision if the Court is convinced of its error and its baneful effect on the general interest of the public. It held that Article 141 of the Constitution which lays down that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India quite obviously refers to Courts other than Supreme Court.
Referring to the above decision, later in the case of Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Labour Court, (1990) 3 SCC 682, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court held that “… the words of Article 141, “binding on all courts within the territory of India”, though wide enough to include the Supreme Court, do not include the Supreme Court itself, and it is not bound by its own judgments but is free to reconsider them in appropriate cases. This is necessary for proper development of law and justice.”
However, the decision of a larger bench of the Supreme Court is definitely binding on a bench of lesser strength of the same court.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
